Dennis Steele, Secessionist candidate for governor of VT, arrested at Dem debate

[LittleLightShining]

Last night I went to the Democratic gubernatorial debate with my friend Dennis Steele. He owns Free Vermont Radio and we were there to broadcast/record the debate. (It was also the only way I could get in as there were a limited number of tickets available to the candidates to distribute. The ticket-only event was, however, open to the media.)

We figured out what the debate format would be-- questions from the moderator and then pre-screened questions from audience members. The debate was sponsored by a coalition of VT unions-- primarily public sector unions-- and the focus was specifically on labor. Naturally Dennis' question and my own (I was going to ask about farming regulations and composting) were inappropriate to the theme of the event. BTW, the debate was held at the Old Socialist Party Labor Hall (http://www.uvm.edu/~histpres/HPJ/NR/barrelabor/statement.html).

At one point after listening to these 5 candidates promising they would hire more state employees, etc etc, talking about how horribly the current GOP administration has handled the budgets (nevermind, of course that 4 of the 5 are or were state Senators during times of Dem supermajority in both houses) Dennis stood up. He took ownership of that room, walked right up to the front of the audience and loudly but calmly asked a question. Mind you, this was live tv.

I will post an audio clip when I have one but he pointed out that VT's share of our failed foreign policy is $1.5 billion and we could be doing so much more with this money if we were independent and kept the $ in VT. People were getting ticked off, lots of "Sit down!" and even "Taser!" remarks were coming from the crowd.

The cops came up, (I'm pretty sure the moderator grabbed Dennis' arm), and escorted him out. He was calm, cool and collected. They took him into custody and apparently arrested him for disorderly conduct. I had a chance to talk to one of the officers, who assured me they would bring him back when the debate was over (which they did and it was fine). That officer came across as genuinely sympathetic to Dennis' frustration and I got the impression that he really wishes he didn't have to take him out.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BT&Date=20100402&Category=TODAYFRONT&ArtNo=100409995&Ref=AR&MaxW=975&MaxH=2025

[Stary Hickory]

Man the vermin were yelling TASER? Honestly?

[RM918]

Crowd reaction is disgusting. This is democracy, alright.

[John Taylor]

Man the vermin were yelling TASER? Honestly?

It was a private event, this man was behaving like a child. He shold have been removed peacefully if possible from the hall.

[LittleLightShining]

Man the vermin were yelling TASER? Honestly?


Crowd reaction is disgusting. This is democracy, alright.

I swear! My jaw hit the floor. We'll have audio soon. I was trying to figure out what the point of that was, really, because we just had a big taser controversy (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/03/17/mentally-ill-old-woman-tasered-for-refusing-to-move/) with this police dept a few weeks ago. It could have been a dig at the police or serious, I don't know.

[John Taylor]

I swear! My jaw hit the floor. We'll have audio soon. I was trying to figure out what the point of that was, really, because we just had a big taser controversy (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2010/03/17/mentally-ill-old-woman-tasered-for-refusing-to-move/) with this police dept a few weeks ago. It could have been a dig at the police or serious, I don't know.

Your buddy was being rude, he interrupted a private gathering, and as you describe it, strode to the front of the auditorium bellowing his question. I don't have any problem with him being arrested whatsoever for disorderly conduct, as his conduct appears to fit the legal description of the charge.

[LittleLightShining]

It was a private event, this man was behaving like a child. He shold have been removed peacefully if possible from the hall.
Patrick Henry and Sam Adams behaved like children, too, I guess.

You weren't there. He is a registered candidate for governor. He was purposely excluded from the debate. It was presented as a Dem primary debate but there was a lot of digging at the Republican candidate for declining an invitation.

He was removed peacefully. I give him a lot of credit for having the cajones to stand up and say something. Non-violent civil disobedience ftw. Sitting there with your hands folded in a carefully choreographed event doesn't get the questions answered. They didn't answer him but the point was made and people heard it. Let the cognitive dissonance of the supposed anti-war democrats ring in their ears.

[John Taylor]

Patrick Henry and Sam Adams behaved like children, too, I guess.

You weren't there. He is a registered candidate for governor. He was purposely excluded from the debate. It was presented as a Dem primary debate but there was a lot of digging at the Republican candidate for declining an invitation.

He was removed peacefully. I give him a lot of credit for having the cajones to stand up and say something. Non-violent civil disobedience ftw. Sitting there with your hands folded in a carefully choreographed event doesn't get the questions answered. They didn't answer him but the point was made and people heard it. Let the cognitive dissonance of the supposed anti-war democrats ring in their ears.

Now your boy is Patrick Henry? Tell me this, did Patrick Henry ever barge into the private event of a political opponent raising cane? He'd have been thrown out of there. Samuel Adams? Really? I doubt it, as his brother John is the attorney who defended the British soldiers and officers who fired on an unruly and armed mob, and won their aquittal on the basis of self-defense.

The debate was PRIVATE. Perhaps you should respect the private events of others, even if they wish to pettily exclude you?

Let the cognitive dissonance of the supposed anti-war democrats ring in their ears

I'm sure they'll be really broken up about it for weeks... while your buddy has his court-dates, and pays money towards their pensions through his fines.

[angelatc]

It got his name and picture on the front page of the paper. That alone is worth the ejection.

[John Taylor]

It got his name and picture on the front page of the paper. That alone is worth the ejection.

If you want to be forever remembered publicly as the guy who interrupted a debate with a ranting question and was arrested for disorderly conduct... Real Win for Liberty there!!!

[MRoCkEd]

Maybe I'm wrong but I tend to think these interrupters (ex. code pink) are only applauded by people who already support them, while everyone else is left with a bad impression. Not all press is good press.

[John Taylor]

maybe i'm wrong but i tend to think these interruptions (ex. Code pink) are only applauded by people who already support you, while everyone else is left with a bad impression. Not all press is good press.

+1776.

[LittleLightShining]

If you want to be forever remembered publicly as the guy who interrupted a debate with a ranting question and was arrested for disorderly conduct... Real Win for Liberty there!!!

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated
and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for
then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." - Mark Twain

Not gonna argue with you anymore, John Taylor. Got lots to do today. It wasn't a ranting question, though. It was pointed and important. If you think $1.5billion is an appropriate share of our foreign empire expenses for some 650k people to be responsible for you're part of the problem.


It got his name and picture on the front page of the paper. That alone is worth the ejection. "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi

He went from ignore to fight and right onto the front page. I'd call that a win.

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.vermontguardian.com/images/local/2007/FreeSpeech.jpg

Pretty sad when this ^^^^ gets you arrested and possibly tazered.

[John Taylor]

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated
and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for
then it costs nothing to be a Patriot." - Mark Twain

Not gonna argue with you anymore, John Taylor. Got lots to do today. It wasn't a ranting question, though. It was pointed and important. If you think $1.5billion is an appropriate share of our foreign empire expenses for some 650k people to be responsible for you're part of the problem.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi

He went from ignore to fight and right onto the front page. I'd call that a win.

Shouting down a PRIVATE ASSOCIATION of individuals gathered together for a political meeting is not "beginning a change", and is not "patriotic", it's disruptive, contrary to principles of individual liberty, and damages the ability of those who actually love freedom to spread our message.

He just completely alienated himself and transformed himself for the rest of his political life into a freak-side-show.

Whatever floats your boat though.

[John Taylor]

http://www.vermontguardian.com/images/local/2007/FreeSpeech.jpg

Pretty sad when this ^^^^ gets you arrested and possibly tazered.

That is not what got him arrested, what got him arrested was trying to take control of a private association meeting to discuss political matters. He barged down to the front shouting his question, that isn't what is going on in Norman Rockwell's painting here.

[LittleLightShining]

http://www.vermontguardian.com/images/local/2007/FreeSpeech.jpg

Pretty sad when this ^^^^ gets you arrested and possibly tazered.

EXACTLY. Because really, that's what it was. Except he walked to the front of the room.

[Anti Federalist]

Non-violent civil disobedience ftw. Sitting there with your hands folded in a carefully choreographed event doesn't get the questions answered. They didn't answer him but the point was made and people heard it. Let the cognitive dissonance of the supposed anti-war democrats ring in their ears.

Don't you understand how this works?

That is precisely what you are supposed to do.

Sit down, shut up, don't make waves and when you get home, write a well ordered and carefully written, strongly worded, letter of disapproval.

Civil disobedience is wrong.

Raising your voice is wrong.

Questioning anything is wrong.

Meekly submit in every instance, because, god forbid, you don't want to come off looking like a kook or a radical, do you?

[pahs1994]

Yea this guy made a big mistake. You can't just storm the stage nomatter how much you want to in a PRIVATE forum. We are supposed to be for liberty, not stepping on others rights to it. Even if their view point sucks

[LittleLightShining]

That is not what got him arrested, what got him arrested was trying to take control of a private association meeting to discuss political matters. He barged down to the front shouting his question, that isn't what is going on in Norman Rockwell's painting here.

You speak like you were there! He wasn't shouting, he was speaking loudly.

You keep sending your checks to <insert random national lobbying organization or political candidate name here>. Don't worry. No one has to be uncomfortable. Everything will be just fine. Just keep those checks coming. Oh! And sign this petition. And call your congressman. Oh! And send another check!

[LittleLightShining]

Yea this guy made a big mistake. You can't just storm the stage nomatter how much you want to in a PRIVATE forum. We are supposed to be for liberty, not stepping on others rights to it. Even if their view point sucks

Yeah, Kokesh made such a HUGE mistake heckling McCain, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[John Taylor]

You speak like you were there! He wasn't shouting, he was speaking loudly.

You keep sending your checks to <insert random national lobbying organization or political candidate name here>. Don't worry. No one has to be uncomfortable. Everything will be just fine. Just keep those checks coming. Oh! And sign this petition. And call your congressman. Oh! And send another check!

Send me a note from jail, and let me know how it feels to e making real liscense plates for people who are fighting to convince the rest of society to be free!

[John Taylor]

Yeah, Kokesh made such a HUGE mistake heckling McCain, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes, he didn't persuade anyone. He'd have been much better off not coming across as a nutso-code pinker, and instead should have calmly had conversations with individuals and one by one won them over.

[John Taylor]

Don't you understand how this works?

That is precisely what you are supposed to do.

Sit down, shut up, don't make waves and when you get home, write a well ordered and carefully written, strongly worded, letter of disapproval.

Civil disobedience is wrong.

Raising your voice is wrong.

Questioning anything is wrong.

Meekly submit in every instance, because, god forbid, you don't want to come off looking like a kook or a radical, do you?

Whatever happened to freedom of association? I guess you don't believe in that either.... nice.

[j6p]

Yeah i find it funny John Taylor likes to argue a lot. When people disagree with what he says. Trying to quote some author about social justice and trying to take that quote and make it a fact.

[Anti Federalist]

Whatever happened to freedom of association? I guess you don't believe in that either.... nice.

STFU and GTFO

These people are running for the PUBLIC office of governor.

As such they can subjected to questions and disapproval of the people in any gathering, save their own homes.

Don't want to be subjected to the anger of the people?

Don't run for office.

I'm sick to death of this attitude of subservient glorification of our "dear leaders" in ivory towers.

Fuck them and their "private" function, and the people in the crowd yelling "taze him".

I swear, some of you yahoos will on the fucking boxcars still whining about how we have to "educate" everybody.

[John Taylor]

Yeah i find it funny John Taylor likes to argue a lot. When people disagree with what he says. Trying to quote some author about social justice and trying to take that quote and make it a fact.

I find it funny that a rabid socialist like j6p doesn't want to refute Frederic Hayek, but instead wants to change what the definition of "is" is in order to transform "social justice" into something compatible with individual liberty.

[RM918]

If it was a 'private' event, why were there cops there? The only reason this event could've taken place to begin with as it was with the significance it had is due to tyrannical campaign laws that prevent others from having an equal opportunity to be heard. Once they started on trampling on the rights of others for the sake of their soapbox they make it very hard to have any sympathy for their 'freedom of association'.

[moostraks]

STFU and GTFO

These people are running for the PUBLIC office of governor.

As such they can subjected to questions and disapproval of the people in any gathering, save their own homes.

Don't want to be subjected to the anger of the people?

Don't run for office.

I'm sick to death of this attitude of subservient glorification of our "dear leaders" in ivory towers.

Fuck them and their "private" function, and the people in the crowd yelling "taze him".

I swear, some of you yahoos will on the fucking boxcars still whining about how we have to "educate" everybody.

*hugs* AF looking like John Taylor might be here to stir the pot...

[John Taylor]

STFU and GTFO

These people are running for the PUBLIC office of governor.

As such they can subjected to questions and disapproval of the people in any gathering, save their own homes.

Don't want to be subjected to the anger of the people?

Don't run for office.

I'm sick to death of this attitude of subservient glorification of our "dear leaders" in ivory towers.

Fuck them and their "private" function, and the people in the crowd yelling "taze him".

I swear, some of you yahoos will on the fucking boxcars still whining about how we have to "educate" everybody.


You obviously have absolutely no love for individual liberty. You call yourself an Anti-Federalist, and yet you reject freedom of association? Yes, the candidates are running for public office, but in a PRIVATE party primary, in which they have the freedom to include and exclude anyone THEY subjectively wish to. Anyone disrupting a private meeting should be arrested and removed.

Learn to have at least a shred of consistency before lecturing others.

[pahs1994]

Yeah, Kokesh made such a HUGE mistake heckling McCain, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Did it do any good? don't get me wrong i want nothing more than a secessonist governor in atleast one of the 50 states but I doubt he won more votes than he lost in that room.

And by the way, about the tazing part. If it was a conservative forum people would likely be yelling shoot him lol

[John Taylor]

Did it do any good? don't get me wrong i want nothing more than a secessonist governor in atleast one of the 50 states but I doubt he won more votes than he lost in that room.

And by the way, about the tazing part. If it was a conservative forum people would likely be yelling shoot him lol

Hell, he disrupted a private meeting. They assembled to hear their candidates speak, and they did not include this one for a reason... We should all respect their freedom of speech, their private property rights, and their freedom of association.

[jmdrake]

Hell, he disrupted a private meeting. They assembled to hear their candidates speak, and they did not include this one for a reason... We should all respect their freedom of speech, their private property rights, and their freedom of association.

Just like these guys did right?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2005_winter_spring/images/teaparty4.jpg

[j6p]

Not a rabit socialist. Why does everyone quote you and telling you are wrong. Maybe that should give you a clue. So when the boxcars come, are you going to submit or fight? From your posts you seem to want to give these suppose leaders of ours the benefit of the doubt. So suck it up and stop trying to spread lie. BTW that defintion came from webster dictionary go and look it up.

[John Taylor]

Just like these guys did right?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2005_winter_spring/images/teaparty4.jpg

No, not like they did. This was a private meeting of private people which was interrupted by someone violating their freedom of speech and assembly.

[RM918]

I'd ordinarily agree with John, IF this were a purely private meeting. If the government had absolutely nothing to do with funding, promoting or otherwise making this thing happen and these guys got here on their own power, I'd agree. However, I see nothing to disbelieve myself of the notion these guys got to where they are because of their monopoly of the political system.

[j6p]

Yeah nice one John. If people are there listening it's not private. It's a fourm. People are allowed to go and hear or protest them. It's not at anyones house or special membership, so i'm not sure where your idea of a private meeting is.

[John Taylor]

Not a rabit socialist. Why does everyone quote you and telling you are wrong. Maybe that should give you a clue. So when the boxcars come, are you going to submit or fight? From your posts you seem to want to give these suppose leaders of ours the benefit of the doubt. So suck it up and stop trying to spread lie. BTW that defintion came from webster dictionary go and look it up.

Everyone? Well, the truthers, the sovereign citizen guys, and the left libertarians like yourself aren't going to like what I have to say, but that's fine.

You say social justice, the redistribution of wealth to achieve "justice" is legit, I disagree. It's theft, even if you somehow manage to hoodwink all the other folks on here.

[jmdrake]

No, not like they did. This was a private meeting of private people which was interrupted by someone violating their freedom of speech and assembly.

They were trespassing and violating private property. If you want to be a purist on "never violate anyone's private property rights" then it's high time you stand up and condemn the Sons of Liberty for this vile action. They should have calmly talked to the owners of the ship and the tea and tried to win them over to their side.

[John Taylor]

I'd ordinarily agree with John, IF this were a purely private meeting. If the government had absolutely nothing to do with funding, promoting or otherwise making this thing happen and these guys got here on their own power, I'd agree. However, I see nothing to disbelieve myself of the notion these guys got to where they are because of their monopoly of the political system.

You can go persuade your fellow citizens to support you, you can run for office, generate press... so you're saying that if anything in an event is related in any way to public affairs, then anyone should be able to come in and speak? Like Rudy Guliani at Ron's Rally for the Republic?

[John Taylor]

Yeah nice one John. If people are there listening it's not private. It's a fourm. People are allowed to go and hear or protest them. It's not at anyones house or special membership, so i'm not sure where your idea of a private meeting is.

This is nonsense. Political parties are private associations.

[John Taylor]

They were trespassing and violating private property. If you want to be a purist on "never violate anyone's private property rights" then it's high time you stand up and condemn the Sons of Liberty for this vile action. They should have calmly talked to the owners of the ship and the tea and tried to win them over to their side.

I condemn any destruction of another's private property. Don't you? It's always wrong to violate someone else's rights, isn't it? It's high time you just come out and say that you think it's ok to violate people's rights as long as the people whose rights are being violated disagree with you????

[j6p]

Social justice in your eyes john, but if you can read a dictionary, it states perfeclty clear what social justice means. Just because some church group wants to promote that then thats what freedom is about. But it's funny that you say you want the churches to take care of the poor and disadavantage, with no governement involved. But you want to go after the churches because they have a sub group of people that are promoting a liberal form of social justice. You sound like a hypocrite.

[jmdrake]

You can go persuade your fellow citizens to support you, you can run for office, generate press... so you're saying that if anything in an event is related in any way to public affairs, then anyone should be able to come in and speak? Like Rudy Guliani at Ron's Rally for the Republic?

Well when Gurley Martin interrupted Rand Paul's debate Rand didn't call for him to be arrested or tasered.

[jmdrake]

I condemn any destruction of another's private property. Don't you? It's always wrong to violate someone else's rights, isn't it? It's high time you just come out and say that you think it's ok to violate people's rights as long as the people whose rights are being violated disagree with you????

Not always. Technically Harriet Tubman freeing slaves was "destruction of another's private property". I take it you were against the revolutionary war in general? Or was it just the grassroots efforts you oppose? Killing redcoats ok, dumping tea is not? :confused:

[RM918]

You can go persuade your fellow citizens to support you, you can run for office, generate press... so you're saying that if anything in an event is related in any way to public affairs, then anyone should be able to come in and speak? Like Rudy Guliani at Ron's Rally for the Republic?

I'm not talking about the subject matter, I'm talking about the event itself. The point I'm trying to make is that the government and the two supposedly private political parties are hardly private at all, and are whole and part of the state having settled themselves as the 'official' parties. Could a third party candidate really have had the ability and force of law to prop themselves up in a similar manner as these people without their monopoly on the elections?

[John Taylor]

Social justice in your eyes john, but if you can read a dictionary, it states perfeclty clear what social justice means. Just because some church group wants to promote that then thats what freedom is about. But it's funny that you say you want the churches to take care of the poor and disadavantage, with no governement involved. But you want to go after the churches because they have a sub group of people that are promoting a liberal form of social justice. You sound like a hypocrite.

I never went after churches, I went after the WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, which has long been a socialist-group in favor of one world government and the forced redistribution of wealth. Social justice implies the socialization of economic assets to acheive "justice". This is marxian in origin, and is the antithesis of individual liberty.

[John Taylor]

I'm not talking about the subject matter, I'm talking about the event itself. The point I'm trying to make is that the government and the two supposedly private political parties are hardly private at all, and are whole and part of the state having settled themselves as the 'official' parties. Could a third party candidate really have had the ability and force of law to prop themselves up in a similar manner as these people without their monopoly on the elections?

That may be all well and good, but private people have the right to associate and form groups which exlcude all others, and have the right to determine who will speak at their own private events and who will not. Does the Republican Liberty Caucus not have the right to determine that Ron Paul and not John McCain will address them?

[John Taylor]

Well when Gurley Martin interrupted Rand Paul's debate Rand didn't call for him to be arrested or tasered.

No, I didn't say I thought he should be tased. I do think he should be arrest and removed from the private meeting. He is violating the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the private property rights we should all cherish so diligently.

[jmdrake]

This is nonsense. Political parties are private associations.

They are at best semi-private. We have primary elections about to happen for the democrat and republican parties. Guess who gets to pay the tab for running the primary elections?

[jmdrake]

No, I didn't say I thought he should be tased. I do think he should be arrest and removed from the private meeting. He is violating the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the private property rights we should all cherish so diligently.

So you think Gurley should have been arrested then. Glad Rand was smart enough not to advocate for something like that. Back to the question of destruction of public property or violation of others rights. Was Harriet Tubman "wrong" for her "destruction" of slave property? Was George Washington wrong for violating the "life" rights of the British soldiers?

[RM918]

That may be all well and good, but private people have the right to associate and form groups which exlcude all others, and have the right to determine who will speak at their own private events and who will not. Does the Republican Liberty Caucus not have the right to determine that Ron Paul and not John McCain will address them?

The Republican Liberty Caucus hasn't written campaign laws in their favor and hasn't railroaded their opposition in their ability to even run for a candidacy. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have taken over the political system from the people with full cooperation between the two on that matter. They use government force to monopolize this stranglehold and because of this I would not consider them to be purely private organizations.

[j6p]

Not sure what your smoking John but, not sure why you dont like the sovereign citizen guys. We are all soverign. I guess when the troops come and take you to the fema camps, you are going to comply. From the sound of your post. Oh yeah the world of churches can put out all propganda they want. But each local church runs diffrently. Did you hear about that pastor asking questions about 9/11? You sound like a troll.

[fedup100]

*hugs* AF looking like John Taylor might be here to stir the pot...

John Taylor is here doing his job. Please people, he is on every thread jerking people around.

If we all hit ignore at the same time I think we can end his mini tyrannical reign.

[John Taylor]

Not sure what your smoking John but, not sure why you dont like the sovereign citizen guys. We are all soverign. I guess when the troops come and take you to the fema camps, you are going to comply. From the sound of your post. Oh yeah the world of churches can put out all propganda they want. But each local church runs diffrently. Did you hear about that pastor asking questions about 9/11? You sound like a troll.

It's not that we aren't all "sovereign" in the sense that we are all free, self-owning individuals. What they stand for is far different. They seek to place themselves outside of the legal system of their state, and of their country. They try to do this by using all sorts of convoluted legal precedent that generally states the opposite of what they say it does, and then seek to file motion upon motion in court once they are inevitably arrested for using a cardboard liscense plate which accuses the judge of all sorts of professional malfeasance because he's actually an "agent for the British crown"... this type of babble (which is what it is), does nothing to advance liberty, for anyone, anywhere.

By the way, it's the "world council of churches".

[John Taylor]

So you think Gurley should have been arrested then. Glad Rand was smart enough not to advocate for something like that. Back to the question of destruction of public property or violation of others rights. Was Harriet Tubman "wrong" for her "destruction" of slave property? Was George Washington wrong for violating the "life" rights of the British soldiers?

Harriet Tubman was not wrong, because she was defending the inherent individual right to self-ownership held by herself and those she was freeing. If she violated the private property rights of any person, she was wrong in those actions, but no human being can hold a private property right in another individual.

As for George Washington: he was acting in self-defense in order to protect the private property rights of himself and his similarly situated colonists against an unlawful and unconstitutional abuse of force by the British monarchy in violation of the 1689 Declaration of Right.

[MelissaWV]

To the victor go the excuses.

[jmdrake]

Harriet Tubman was not wrong, because she was defending the inherent individual right to self-ownership held by herself and those she was freeing. If she violated the private property rights of any person, she was wrong in those actions, but no human being can hold a private property right in another individual.

As for George Washington: he was acting in self-defense in order to protect the private property rights of himself and his similarly situated colonists against an unlawful and unconstitutional abuse of force by the British monarchy in violation of the 1689 Declaration of Right.

So violent resistance to tyranny beats non violent property destruction in resistance to that same tyranny? Sorry, I simply disagree. Dumping tea is better than killing people.

Also in order for Harriet Tubman to reach the individuals in order to free them she had to trespass. She may have had to break a few locks too. I'm sure some of the slaves "stole" provisions for their trip.

Anyway, the two parties quit being "private" when they started taking taxpayer money to do things like run primary elections.

[John Taylor]

So violent resistance to tyranny beats non violent property destruction in resistance to that same tyranny? Sorry, I simply disagree. Dumping tea is better than killing people.

We do disagree. Theft and destruction of another individual's private property rights is not excusable. It is a crime, should be a crime, and should always be punished.

Killing somone else is dreadful, that is sure, but it can be done justly if in self-defense.

[jmdrake]

We do disagree. Theft and destruction of another individual's private property rights is not excusable. It is a crime, should be a crime, and should always be punished.

Killing somone else is dreadful, that is sure, but it can be done justly if in self-defense.

If killing can be done in self defense then destruction of another individual's property can be done in self defense. Every time we blow up a tank or an airfield we are in effect "destroying property". Anyway, I hope you don't attend any "tea parties" since you philosophically disagree with the men who originated the concept.

[LittleLightShining]

You obviously have absolutely no love for individual liberty. You call yourself an Anti-Federalist, and yet you reject freedom of association? Yes, the candidates are running for public office, but in a PRIVATE party primary, in which they have the freedom to include and exclude anyone THEY subjectively wish to. Anyone disrupting a private meeting should be arrested and removed.

Learn to have at least a shred of consistency before lecturing others.Ok, ok... you really have NO idea what you're talking about.

FIRST of all the debate was not "private" it was co-sponsored by a coalition of public sector unions and VERMONT PUBLIC TELEVISION at The Old Labor Hall. For Historical references please see the OP. There is a link that explains the rich history of this building. From that link there is this interesting gem (among others): "One occurrence that demonstrated the unpredictable nature of the political groups of this period took place on the night of October 4, 1903, at the Labor Hall. During a political gathering to hear a Socialist speaker, an argument broke out between Socialists and Anarchists, ending in the fatal shooting of Elia Corti, a prominent stone carver responsible for the panels on the Robert Burns Memorial statue (1899) in Barre."

The building itself is public property : "In July of 1995 the Barre Historical Society in partnership with the City of Barre, State and Local organizations, private individuals, and businesspersons helped purchased the Old Labor Hall. The structure is now under the process of restoration to again serve the community of Barre as a meeting hall and social club."

The candidates who were to debate last night is somewhat suspect. It has been characterized as a Democratic primary debate, the Lt. Governor and GOP candidate for gov Brian Dubie had supposedly been invited but declined to participate. WHY would a Republican debate in a Democratic primary event? So IF he was invited then ALL of the registered candidates should have been invited. Dennis was excluded.


I'd ordinarily agree with John, IF this were a purely private meeting. If the government had absolutely nothing to do with funding, promoting or otherwise making this thing happen and these guys got here on their own power, I'd agree. However, I see nothing to disbelieve myself of the notion these guys got to where they are because of their monopoly of the political system.Absolutely except for the very first part of your post.

[Free Moral Agent]

STFU and GTFO

These people are running for the PUBLIC office of governor.

As such they can subjected to questions and disapproval of the people in any gathering, save their own homes.

Don't want to be subjected to the anger of the people?

Don't run for office.

I'm sick to death of this attitude of subservient glorification of our "dear leaders" in ivory towers.

Fuck them and their "private" function, and the people in the crowd yelling "taze him".

I swear, some of you yahoos will on the fucking boxcars still whining about how we have to "educate" everybody.

+1

[John Taylor]

Ok, ok... you really have NO idea what you're talking about.

FIRST of all the debate was not "private" it was co-sponsored by a coalition of public sector unions and VERMONT PUBLIC TELEVISION at The Old Labor Hall. For Historical references please see the OP. There is a link that explains the rich history of this building. From that link there is this interesting gem (among others): "One occurrence that demonstrated the unpredictable nature of the political groups of this period took place on the night of October 4, 1903, at the Labor Hall. During a political gathering to hear a Socialist speaker, an argument broke out between Socialists and Anarchists, ending in the fatal shooting of Elia Corti, a prominent stone carver responsible for the panels on the Robert Burns Memorial statue (1899) in Barre."

The building itself is public property : "In July of 1995 the Barre Historical Society in partnership with the City of Barre, State and Local organizations, private individuals, and businesspersons helped purchased the Old Labor Hall. The structure is now under the process of restoration to again serve the community of Barre as a meeting hall and social club."

The candidates who were to debate last night is somewhat suspect. It has been characterized as a Democratic primary debate, the Lt. Governor and GOP candidate for gov Brian Dubie had supposedly been invited but declined to participate. WHY would a Republican debate in a Democratic primary event? So IF he was invited then ALL of the registered candidates should have been invited. Dennis was excluded.

Absolutely except for the very first part of your post.

Private meetings may be held in public facilities acquired for the purpose of holding that meeting without forcing those groups to include anyone who wants to speak. Schools that allow churches to meet in their buildings on Sundays do not have to allow athiests equal access to that church meeting...

Private groups have the right to exclude anyone they wish from partioipation. Freedom of association is one of the keystones defending freedom of speech. You would do well to remember that.

[Free Moral Agent]

We do disagree. Theft and destruction of another individual's private property rights is not excusable. It is a crime, should be a crime, and should always be punished.

Killing somone else is dreadful, that is sure, but it can be done justly if in self-defense.

LoL, and this is coming from someone who's worried about our image... :rolleyes:

[John Taylor]

LoL, and this is coming from someone who's worried about our image... :rolleyes:

There is nothing wrong with using force to protect one's own life. This is self-defense, and is enshrined in every legal code in the world. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[j6p]

Your right it's public property. John does not seem to understand that our taxes went into that debate. So to call it a private meeting is nonsense. Just like side walks, when taxes goes into something like sidewalks, it's public property. No one should say just because you are walking on side walk its stalking. When it goes past your house. So what John says is nonsese.

[Free Moral Agent]

There is nothing wrong with using force to protect one's own life. This is self-defense, and is enshrined in every legal code in the world. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Of course I agree with the latter statement, but the absurdity I wanted to highlight is that you view violent resistance to tyranny via destruction of property as NEVER excusable yet the killing of another opposed to the same tyranny IS excusable.

What about the destruction of weaponry? You make us look ridiculous not people like this guy that stood up in Vermont.

[LittleLightShining]

Private meetings may be held in public facilities acquired for the purpose of holding that meeting without forcing those groups to include anyone who wants to speak. Schools that allow churches to meet in their buildings on Sundays do not have to allow athiests equal access to that church meeting...

Private groups have the right to exclude anyone they wish from partioipation. Freedom of association is one of the keystones defending freedom of speech. You would do well to remember that.
Dude.

http://www.touchfree.com/images/products/eye-wash1.jpg

The debate was sponsored by Vermont PUBLIC television and held in a PUBLIC building.

[Anti Federalist]

They were trespassing and violating private property. If you want to be a purist on "never violate anyone's private property rights" then it's high time you stand up and condemn the Sons of Liberty for this vile action. They should have calmly talked to the owners of the ship and the tea and tried to win them over to their side.

I was going to bring this up, but I see you already did.

Well done.

Carry on.

[Sandman33]

Dude.

http://www.touchfree.com/images/products/eye-wash1.jpg

The debate was sponsored by Vermont PUBLIC television and held in a PUBLIC building.


Damn I missed you LLS.

I believe you are quite correct.

This man was not unruly or violent. He simply asked a question and left peacefully.

[John Taylor]

Damn I missed you LLS.

I believe you are quite correct.

This man was not unruly or violent. He simply asked a question and left peacefully.

If by asked a question you mean loudly bellowing an unsoliticited question out while striding to the front of the auditorium, perhaps.

[jmdrake]

There is nothing wrong with using force to protect one's own life. This is self-defense, and is enshrined in every legal code in the world. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Protecting one's own life? You make it sound like the British were rouding up colonists and indiscriminately committing mass murder. While I wasn't there, I'm pretty sure that's not what happened. In fact the colonists put their lives in more danger because of their insistence on defending this intangible "property" known as liberty. Remember the words "Give me liberty or give me death"?

And again, sometimes destroying property is self defense. (I already gave examples).

Anyway, this is a good example of why the world needs all kinds of people. Somebody needed to dump the tea overboard. And I doubt you'd find very many Americans, liberal or conservative, that agree with the proposition that violent resistance to tyranny is ok but property destruction as a form of resistence to tyranny is not. So much for the French resistance blowing up trains to disrupt the German supply lines. They were "destroying private property".

[John Taylor]

Protecting one's own life? You make it sound like the British were rouding up colonists and indiscriminately committing mass murder. While I wasn't there, I'm pretty sure that's not what happened. In fact the colonists put their lives in more danger because of their insistence on defending this intangible "property" known as liberty. Remember the words "Give me liberty or give me death"?

And again, sometimes destroying property is self defense. (I already gave examples).

Anyway, this is a good example of why the world needs all kinds of people. Somebody needed to dump the tea overboard. And I doubt you'd find very many Americans, liberal or conservative, that agree with the proposition that violent resistance to tyranny is ok but property destruction as a form of resistence to tyranny is not. So much for the French resistance blowing up trains to disrupt the German supply lines. They were "destroying private property".

No, they were destroying German State-property.

It is sometimes necessary to destroy property, and to destroy life, but one should only ever do either in self-defense.

[disorderlyvision]

john taylor you are an idiot

/thread

[John Taylor]

john taylor you are an idiot

/thread

Disorderly, and you're a statist who doesn't believe in private property rights.

[disorderlyvision]

Disorderly, and you're a statist who doesn't believe in private property rights.
LMAO...you you got me:rolleyes: you are a fucking tool

[LittleLightShining]

Disorderly, and you're a statist who doesn't believe in private property rights.

Bwahahahaha!!! JT is a comedian!

[John Taylor]

LMAO...you you got me:rolleyes: you are a fucking tool

Well you apparently don't believe in freedom of association, or freedom of speech, or of private property rights. This group almost certainly had to reserve this space, organize their event, and determine who they wanted to speak. You support railroading them and preventing them from expressing themselves. That is "fucking toolbaggery" if I've ever seen it. You're a disgrace.

[j6p]

Always find John Taylor rants amusing.

[low preference guy]

If you want to be forever remembered publicly as the guy who interrupted a debate with a ranting question and was arrested for disorderly conduct... Real Win for Liberty there!!!

what an annoying ass.

being in someone's property doesn't give the cops a free pass to taser anybody.

it was a public meeting, people were allowed to ask questions, and the dude just asked a question! there were no preconditions for the questions that could be asked. the cops were obviously out of line, that's why they released him quickly. do you have better things to do than hijacking threads with your random and uninformed rants?

lastly, democrats fund their meetings with stolen money given to them by the state. so when you say that they deserve rights of free association, you're defending the right of free association of a criminal organization.

[Anti Federalist]

Cross threaded responses.

This is a reply to this post:http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2626180&postcount=280


You are an ignorant man.

Some would say so. I am a simple man no doubt, being a high school dropout with no degrees in philosophy, law or economics.

I don't parse or mince words, I have no use for the greasy dissimulations of politics, diplomacy or "moderation".

I have even less patience for sitting around and fiddling while Rome burns.


I do not favor restricting the manner, style and place of protesting for redress of grievances, rather, I believe in maintaining each and every person's private property rights, their freedom of speech, and their freedom of association, even if they are, by exercising these rights, marginalizing those who most powerfully would advocate for liberty.

It has already been made clear that I view this event as public, with candidates vying for public office, in a public venue held on, nominally, public property.

Had this been held in the candidate's backyard or in their living room, obviously, that would have been different situation.


For someone who says he's watching this with amusement, you are certainly coming down hard on me. :rolleyes::rolleyes:;)

I did not say I was watching with amusement...:confused:

Far from it, I am furious at what is going on.

My mood isn't helped by people planning to just sit on the sidelines and eat steaks and popcorn and watch everything play out.

[jmdrake]

No, they were destroying German State-property.


Says you! You really don't know as much about history as you think. Private entities were involved in the German war effort. How do I know this? Because our own government paid reparations to Ford and GM for their plants that we bombed that were building trucks for the German military!



It is sometimes necessary to destroy property, and to destroy life, but one should only ever do either in self-defense.

Again the revolutionary war was NOT fought in defense of life. If was fought in defense of liberty.

[jmdrake]

Well you apparently don't believe in freedom of association, or freedom of speech, or of private property rights. This group almost certainly had to reserve this space, organize their event, and determine who they wanted to speak. You support railroading them and preventing them from expressing themselves. That is "fucking toolbaggery" if I've ever seen it. You're a disgrace.

And for the record the republican/democratic party gave up part of their right of association when they became quasi-public rather than strictly private political parties by dipping into the public treasury to fund their primary elections. Let's take the Republican Liberty Caucus example you gave. The RLC could say that only white males could vote in their election process if they wanted. The democrat and republican parties can NOT do that by law because they are quasi public entities. And has already been pointed out the event did not happen on private property. I know you're just trying to encourage everyone to act in a respectable way and such, but you've simply got your facts screwed up.

[John Taylor]

Cross threaded responses.

This is a reply to this post:http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2626180&postcount=280



Some would say so. I am a simple man no doubt, being a high school dropout with no degrees in philosophy, law or economics.

I don't parse or mince words, I have no use for the greasy dissimulations of politics, diplomacy or "moderation".

I have even less patience for sitting around and fiddling while Rome burns.



It has already been made clear that I view this event as public, with candidates vying for public office, in a public venue held on, nominally, public property.

Had this been held in the candidate's backyard or in their living room, obviously, that would have been different situation.



I did not say I was watching with amusement...:confused:

Far from it, I am furious at what is going on.

My mood isn't helped by people planning to just sit on the sidelines and eat steaks and popcorn and watch everything play out.

This event was a private event, held by a private political party, attended by private people, in a private venue. If a group is holding a meeting on public property lawfully, you have no right to go interfere in their assembly. That is what happened here.

[jmdrake]

This event was a private event, held by a private political party, attended by private people, in a private venue. If a group is holding a meeting on public property lawfully, you have no right to go interfere in their assembly. That is what happened here.

It wasn't a private political party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright

[low preference guy]

This event was a private event, held by a private political party, attended by private people, in a private venue. If a group is holding a meeting on public property lawfully, you have no right to go interfere in their assembly. That is what happened here.

There were no restrictions on who could assist, so it wasn't for private people. There were no prerequisites about the questions that could be asked, so the guy didn't violate any laws. I wonder why the police released Dennis so quickly. Maybe they were out of line when they detained him?

[John Taylor]

It wasn't a private political party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Allwright

It is a private organization, but it cannot exclude people from participating in a primary because the constitution explicitly protects the right to vote in the 14th and 15th amendments.

[John Taylor]

There were no restrictions on who could assist, so it wasn't for private people. There were no prerequisites about the questions that could be asked, so the guy didn't violate any laws. I wonder why the police released Dennis so quickly. Maybe they were out of line when they detained him?

No, he was disrupting a private meeting.

[low preference guy]

No, he was disrupting a private meeting.

There were no restrictions on the people who could attend. Nor were there prerequisites about the questions that could be asked. How was he out of line?

He was removed because of the question he asked, he didn't do anything but asking an uncomfortable question.

[John Taylor]

There were no restrictions on the people who could attend. Nor were there prerequisites about the questions that could be asked. How was he out of line?

He was removed because of the question he asked, he didn't do anything but asking an uncomfortable question.

He wasn't removed for asking a question, he was removed for disrupting the meeting by speaking loudly, accusing the participants of various things, and for storming up to the stage.

[jmdrake]

It is a private organization, but it cannot exclude people from participating in a primary because the constitution explicitly protects the right to vote in the 14th and 15th amendments.

The American Nazi party can prevent people from voting in their primaries. So can the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. Ross Perot was able to hand select Pat Buchanan over the objection of the view of the majority of the Reform Party. The reason the 14th and 15th amendments apply to the RepubliCrats is because the democratic and republican parties aren't really private. They take public money to run their primaries. They get automatic ballot access and a lot of other goodies that "private" political parties don't get.

[John Taylor]

The American Nazi party can prevent people from voting in their primaries. So can the Libertarian Party and the Green Party. The reason the 14th and 15th amendments apply is because the democratic and republican parties aren't really private. They take public money to run their primaries. They get automatic ballot access and a lot of other goodies that "private" political parties don't get.

So should one of the major two parties be able to exclude candidates from a forum who don't share their political persuasions? How many candidates must they admit? 20? 40? 500? 5000?

[disorderlyvision]

disrupting... speaking loudly... accusing... and for storming

So, not only are you an idiot who can't see what has happened when presented evidence, case law, etc. from more than one person, refuting everything you have said...you are also a drama queen! Storming lol wtf

[low preference guy]

John Taylor, what do you think of the fact that the Democrats fund their party with stolen money from taxpayers? Do they still have all the rights everyone else has? Does the mafia have the right of free association without people "storming" their meetings?

[sratiug]

The Democratic Party doesn't own the airwaves. Fuck them.

[nobody's_hero]

If just one person leaves that "debate" and gives an ounce of consideration to what Mr. Steele said, then I'll count it as a victory.

The DNC and the RNC events were "private", and the hosters of those events were nice enough to put people in "free speech zones" (absurdity for a 'free' nation) and then trample on their rights when they got into power.

Sorry, but the very second that ambitious candidates have plans to seek power over my life, I have a dog in the fight. Frankly, Mr. Steele does, too.

And where did all these trolls come from?

[LittleLightShining]

If just one person leaves that "debate" and gives an ounce of consideration to what Mr. Steele said, then I'll count it as a victory.


I agree! And there were people coming up and taking slim jims after that happened-- not a lot--but there were and that proved he did more to educate people with that one outburst than he ever could of as a fringe candidate sitting in the back of the room.

[Nate]

John Taylor is here doing his job. Please people, he is on every thread jerking people around.

If we all hit ignore at the same time I think we can end his mini tyrannical reign.

+1

I did that about 1 week after he started posting.

[pcosmar]

I never put anyone on ignore. I like to keep track of what they are up to.
I engage them and bait them till they out themselves.
Then, just don't respond. ( or respond rudely) ;)

but I do like to keep track of them.

[j6p]

John Taylor, He he not a ron paul supporter. He cant refute arguments. This debate was held on public property and the cannidates take in taxes for these debates. He is one of those guys who lives in a subdivsion and thinks people walking by his house on a public side walk is stalking him.

[RM918]

While I disagree with John, I think pointedly ignoring him or calling him a jackass is rather farfetched. He may be combative but he's not conducting himself improperly.

[payme_rick]

Hmmm... Let me get this straight... it is okay for someone to kill in defense of Liberty, but not okay for them to raise their voice in defense of Liberty?

I'm not going to get into the "private v. public" gathering deal and the arrest here, but if you're this angry because a guy raised his voice and approached the stage this may be the wrong movement for you...

[j6p]

This is what the whole movement is based on. It's based being able to raise your voice and be heard. Thats what John Talylor is so wrong. RM918 He seems to be conducting himself improperly. Dont know why you dont think that.

[John Taylor]

This is what the whole movement is based on. It's based being able to raise your voice and be heard. Thats what John Talylor is so wrong. RM918 He seems to be conducting himself improperly. Dont know why you dont think that.

The "whole movement" is not based upon disrupting other's freedom of association, their private property rights, and their right to free speech.

[John Taylor]

Hmmm... Let me get this straight... it is okay for someone to kill in defense of Liberty, but not okay for them to raise their voice in defense of Liberty?

I'm not going to get into the "private v. public" gathering deal and the arrest here, but if you're this angry because a guy raised his voice and approached the stage this may be the wrong movement for you...

No one ever said one should not be able to speak their mind, what I suggested was that this was not the right forum for him to bellow a question and storm the stage. That is not going to convince anyone, ever.

It is not "defending" liberty to violate the rights of others. The ends do not justify the means, and expediency as a working principle is bound to fail. You are wrong sir.

[John Taylor]

So, not only are you an idiot who can't see what has happened when presented evidence, case law, etc. from more than one person, refuting everything you have said...you are also a drama queen! Storming lol wtf

Questions for you disorderly:

1) Was your friend given a microphone?

2) Did those running the forum consent to your friend speaking in the way he did?

3) Did the private political meeting invite your candidate to participate?

4) Does it alienate people or bring them to the freedom philosophy by seizing control of a microphone (or perhaps even worse, bellowing out a question unsolicited)?

5) Does the Republican Party of Kentucky have the right to exclude some of the other 14 candidates for U.S. Senate from participating in debates in an acknowledgment of both polling results and out of a desire to enlighten the population as to the opinions of someone who might actually BE elected?

6) Do individuals have the freedom to associate with whomever they desire peacefully?

7) Do individuals have a private property right to exclude people they don't wish to participate from their organization? (See Dale v. Boy Scouts of America).

[John Taylor]

John Taylor, He he not a ron paul supporter. He cant refute arguments. This debate was held on public property and the cannidates take in taxes for these debates. He is one of those guys who lives in a subdivsion and thinks people walking by his house on a public side walk is stalking him.

1) Where do you have evidence that this particular debate was funded through the dollars of the taxpayer?

2) So who can be excluded from a debate held on public property (even if a private party reserves the space)? How many candidates must be included? Every solitary one who registers for office?

3) I was captain of my college's debate team.

4) I've donated the legal maximum to Congressman Paul for several election cycles, and have supported him since 1995.

5) Freedom of association is one of the bedrocks of republican self-government. This man, Dennis Steele, attempted to infringe upon this sacred right. He was justly removed from the meeting, even if he shares every one of my political views concerning the need to restore the constitutional republic, laissez faire, and the freedom philosophy to Americans everywhere.

[Mike4Freedom]

1) Where do you have evidence that this particular debate was funded through the dollars of the taxpayer?

So who can be excluded from a debate held on public property (even if a private party reserves the space)? How many candidates must be included? Every solitary one who registers for office?

Can you seriously just STFU.

[John Taylor]

The Democratic Party doesn't own the airwaves. Fuck them.

No one ever said they did. This charge is a non sequitor. They do have a right to freely associate with whomever they wish, don't they?

[John Taylor]

Can you seriously just STFU.

Nice non-answer statist.

Can a political party who disagrees with communism exclude a communist candidate from participating? Why not? Why should not anti-communists be able to freely meet without being forced to admit those who wish their perspective ill?

[Mike4Freedom]

Nice non-answer statist.

Can a political party who disagrees with communism exclude a communist candidate from participating? Why not? Why should not anti-communists be able to freely meet without being forced to admit those who wish their perspective ill?

Technique 3 of cointelpro:

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Sounds familair.

[MelissaWV]

... Some of you should consider getting some sleep?

[John Taylor]

Technique 3 of cointelpro:

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Sounds familair.

Whatever that rant is:

Do not Libertarians have the right to exclude statists from their candidate forums? How many candidates must be included? All of them? How many???? What if there are 40 candidates registered, with most of them being like Mr. Steele here, with basically no measurable level of support.

[RM918]

Technique 3 of cointelpro:

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

Sounds familair.

Is it really trolling? He's just defending his point. I haven't seen him sling names around or anything. Maybe act condescending, but that's about it.

[John Taylor]

Is it really trolling? He's just defending his point. I haven't seen him sling names around or anything. Maybe act condescending, but that's about it.

I just see a few large problems inherent with doing what Mr. Steele did:

1) Violating other people's freedom of association.

2) Violating other people's freedom of speech.

3) Violating other people's private property rights.

4) Marginalizing the freedom movement by associating it with a manic messenger.

Ok, I'm off for the weekend, have a blast guys! I have to get back out and be productive so I can pay for your public defender and jail costs!

[Anti Federalist]

The "whole movement" is not based upon disrupting other's freedom of association, their private property rights, and their right to free speech.

And the whole point of civil disobedience is to upset the status quo, to force yourself into people's thinking and make them question their presumptions.

You cannot conduct an act of civil disobedience meekly sitting on your hands.

Nobody had their right to freely associate violated, so stop squawking about that, government goons did not come and arrest the people peaceably assembling, in this case they arrested the agitator and everybody went about their business.

[MelissaWV]

Is it really trolling? He's just defending his point. I haven't seen him sling names around or anything. Maybe act condescending, but that's about it.


Ok, I'm off for the weekend, have a blast guys! I have to get back out and be productive so I can pay for your public defender and jail costs!

:rolleyes:

Nah, no rudeness there. Of course, we're all poor and unemployed ourselves, so thank God we have people like John Taylor to work and contribute to our cannot-afford-a-lawyer-one-will-be-appointed fund!

[JeNNiF00F00]

STFU and GTFO

These people are running for the PUBLIC office of governor.

As such they can subjected to questions and disapproval of the people in any gathering, save their own homes.

Don't want to be subjected to the anger of the people?

Don't run for office.

I'm sick to death of this attitude of subservient glorification of our "dear leaders" in ivory towers.

Fuck them and their "private" function, and the people in the crowd yelling "taze him".

I swear, some of you yahoos will on the fucking boxcars still whining about how we have to "educate" everybody.

Hear hear!!

[LittleLightShining]

Democratic candidates for governor debate on Vermont Public Television April 1 (http://vtdigger.org/2010/03/29/democratic-candidates-for-governor-debate-on-vermont-public-television-april-1/)


PRESS RELEASE
For release 3/26/10
Media contact: Ann Curran at (802) 655-8059 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting**************(802) 655-8059******end_of_the_skype_highlighting (802) 655-8059, acurran@vpt.org or Jeff Vande Griek at (802) 655-8062 (802)655-8062, jeffv@vpt.org

Online Chat Invites Viewers to Comment

Live from the Old Labor Hall in Barre on Thursday, April 1, from 7:30 to 9 p.m., the five Democratic candidates for governor will meet in their first statewide televised debate. Airing live on Vermont Public Television, the forum is sponsored by Working Vermont Coalition, a collaboration of Vermont labor unions.

The moderator of “Working Vermont’s Democratic Primary Debate” will be Marselis Parsons, former news director at WCAX-TV.

VPT will broadcast the event statewide and webcast it on www.vpt.org, where anyone anywhere with access to Web-based video can watch it. During the debate, there will be a live Web chat on www.vpt.org. Journalists Shay Totten of Seven Days and Anne Galloway of vtdigger.org will host the chat, weigh in with their thoughts and invite viewers to join the conversation.

Coverage of the debate is part of VPT’s election-year content, intended to help voters make informed choices. Senior executive producer is Joe Merone.

The VPT annual report ([URL="http://support.vpt.org/site/DocServer/VPT_Annual_Rpt_FY09_Final.pdf?docID=1381) indicates that they receive $1,047,439 from the Federal govt and $564,620 from the state of VT.

[RM918]

:rolleyes:

Nah, no rudeness there. Of course, we're all poor and unemployed ourselves, so thank God we have people like John Taylor to work and contribute to our cannot-afford-a-lawyer-one-will-be-appointed fund!

That's what I meant about the condescending, but rudeness? This isn't my first time to the rodeo, and as far as internet scuffles go he's practically the embodiment of politesse.

I just don't like seeing people get into big swinging kerfuffles over some cheek.

[pcosmar]

Is it really trolling? He's just defending his point. I haven't seen him sling names around or anything. Maybe act condescending, but that's about it.

Yes that really is Trolling. And this is not the only thread.
I suspect a professional troll.

[MelissaWV]

That's what I meant about the condescending, but rudeness? This isn't my first time to the rodeo, and as far as internet scuffles go he's practically the embodiment of politesse.

I just don't like seeing people get into big swinging kerfuffles over some cheek.

Trolling finds its roots in merely posting to get a reaction, rather than to discuss the issue at hand. If you are intensely bored later, you can get into posting history and decide for yourself, but his posting over the past couple of days is questionable at best.

The rudeness of others towards him does not discount him as a troll, but instead marks him as a successful troll.

[LittleLightShining]

Yes that really is Trolling. And this is not the only thread.
I suspect a professional troll.I agree. I also suspect "he" may be a sock puppet belonging to someone who had a rough January/February here.

I put "him" on ignore.

[pcosmar]

I agree. I also suspect "he" may be a sock puppet belonging to someone who had a rough January/February here.

I put "him" on ignore.

I never put them on ignore.
I put them on Alert. ;)

[LittleLightShining]

I never put them on ignore.
I put them on Alert. ;)

I used to do that, too, but I don't have enough time to spend here these days getting myself worked up over a troll. I think you know me well enough to know I usually don't back down easily ;)

[j6p]

John people dont care if you were the star of your high school debate team. That is so old and imature. Yeah, we have another child grown up, thinking he is still in High school. BTW someone has already refuted you on the debate. So stfu

[LittleLightShining]

If anyone wants to contribute to Dennis' gubernatorial campaign you can donate here: http://www.governorsteele.com/

[j6p]

Looks like John go owned on this board. He needs to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth.

[carbonpenguin]

From: http://asrblog.com/2010/04/08/heads-in-the-sand-the-democratic-forums-and-the-attempts-to-silence-dennis-steele/

The events of the last month have powerfully revealed the descent of the campaign for Vermont Governor into the realm of farce. While the anointed Republican Brian Dubie sits idly on the side-lines waiting for a Democratic front-runner to emerge, the five Democrats have initiated a whirlwind “consensus-fest” tour of the Vermont, holding forums across the State during which they agree with each other for ninety minutes in front of a live audience. This has, obviously, led to some incredibly boring and near meaningless public meeting, which have only been spiced up by the presence of independent candidate Dennis Steele.

This is despite the fact that, due to a somewhat fishy sequence of events, Mr. Steele has not been invited to participate in any forum. At the first event of the campaign season, invitations were sent out to all of the candidates who’d made campaign treasurer filings with the Secretary of State; Dennis had just announced his candidacy and hadn’t yet made that filing, so his exclusion was understandable, if annoying. Soon afterwards, however, it became clear that Mr. Dubie was not going to engage in any forums until the Democratic candidate was determined. As a result, all of the subsequent candidates forums have been labeled Democratic candidates forums. This change made it quite simple to justify organizers’ exclusion of Dennis (or any other independent candidate) from the debates, thus sending the message to voters that only the Democratic candidates (and their opinions) matter.

In spite of this enormous hurdle, Steele has made his voice heard and challenged the weakness of principle and resolve that seems to plague the whole field of Democratic candidates. At the first forum (at which the topic was education), Dennis stood up during the question and answer session and pointed out the deep responsibility the Federal Government has for the erosion of local school control. He then inquired as to what the Democratic candidates would do as Governor to reverse that trend and, if the Feds were unresponsive, if they’d consider political independence. His question stimulated a spirited discussion among the “official” candidates, and expose the whole audience to the idea that we have more options available to us with which to solve our problems that those that the Democrats and Republicans discuss.

Having met with success, Dennis continued this strategy at further forums, confronting the other candidates about such things as bringing the National Guard home from the wars and the fact that, in spite of a Vermont statute legalizing the growing of hemp, the Federal Government still prohibits the production of that valuable cash crop by Vermont farmers. However, the Democrats were catching on to Dennis’ strategy, and began to throw up barriers to having to answer his hard questions. First, at the UVM College Democrats debate, they required that all questions be submitted by the moderator rather than being taken directly from the floor. However, one of the selected questions had been submitted by Steele supporter Steve Liable, and Dennis rose to clarify it when the Democratic candidates deflected its essence. The next event was not open to the public, but was instead peopled by invitees of the sponsoring organizations. Steele was able to circumvent that roadblock by getting a press pass, but when he challenged the candidates about the reality of the budget crisis when $1.5 billion Vermont tax dollars are spent each year on a failed foreign policy, the police pounced and Dennis was escorted out in handcuffs.

This elaborate song and dance powerfully communicates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of Vermont’s political “leadership”. None of the answers they’re willing to consider even come close to addressing the problems we face: a corrupt, out of control financial system, an empire that is forcing our whole society into bankruptcy, a growing governmental disregard for civil liberties, and the wholesale destruction of the autonomy of local communities. The solutions to these problems require serious resolve, creativity, and a willingness to stand up to the Federal Government; the Establishment candidates, however, want people to keep believing that their stop-gap, band-aid fixes will make everything better. The truth scares them; so much so, in fact, that they’d rather see its messenger led away in handcuffs than take on the heavy responsibility of actually leading Vermont to a better future. Dennis Steele, on the other hand, is ready to take on that task without apology, and deserves your vote this coming November.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Crowd reaction is disgusting. This is democracy, alright.

well, they are democrats. the party of totalitarianism

[John Taylor]

Looks like John go owned on this board. He needs to stop talking out of both sides of his mouth.

It's fine with me if you don't support private property rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of association, just don't pretend to be a friend of individual liberty if you do advocate such things!

Thanks!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It's fine with me if you don't support private property rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of association, just don't pretend to be a friend of individual liberty if you do advocate such things!

Thanks!

And if Vermont were its own country? um, definitely a welfare state. Not going to happen, anyway.

[John Taylor]

And if Vermont were its own country? um, definitely a welfare state. Not going to happen, anyway.

I'd be perfectly thrilled if Vermont left the United States! I don't think it'll happen, but more power to it, go for it, take Conn and Mass along with it!

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'd be perfectly thrilled if Vermont left the United States! I don't think it'll happen, but more power to it, go for it!

I'd be thrilled if the vermont government collapsed.

viva la libertad!

viva la anarquismo!

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/286/09d/28609d42-0822-4856-850b-34da1e54adf5

[John Taylor]

I'd be thrilled if the vermont government collapsed.

viva la libertad!

viva la anarquismo!

http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/286/09d/28609d42-0822-4856-850b-34da1e54adf5

Let me guess, you're some ancient Federación Anarquista Ibérica member? I can't get on board with you boys I'm afraid. My loyalties at the time are in tune with those advocating the defense of private property rather than with the CNT and their more radical brethren you seem to be advocating! :eek:;)

There must be law in order for civil society to be maintained... though as your avatar demonstrates, perhaps the destruction of civil society is precisely what you aim at.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Let me guess, you're some ancient Federación Anarquista Ibérica member? I can't get on board with you boys I'm afraid. My loyalties at the time are in tune with those advocating the defense of private property rather than with the CNT and their more radical brethren you seem to be advocating! :eek:;)

There must be law in order for civil society to be maintained... though as your avatar demonstrates, perhaps the destruction of civil society is precisely what you aim at.

Not at all, bud. Ancap here.

[John Taylor]

Not at all, bud. Ancap here.

Well carry on then brother!

[j6p]

John again if you look at what past posters have said on this thread you will see that this event was on public property, so people do have a right to protest. If it's public property it's not private so dont confuse the two, you dont support property rights, stop trolling.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

John again if you look at what past posters have said on this thread you will see that this event was on public property, so people do have a right to protest. If it's public property it's not private so dont confuse the two, you dont support property rights, stop trolling.

There is no such thing as "public property." The property you are citing is called stolen property

[j6p]

It's called tax payer property. So you dont belive in civil disobediance?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It's called tax payer property. So you dont belive in civil disobediance?

Taxes are theft.

[j6p]

Dont know what your trying to get at, but this thread was about someone protesting. So your saying somehow this is private property, that is paid by the tax payer. Stop confusing the two.

[carbonpenguin]

... and Dennis, who just obtained ballot access with 675 signatures, was participated as an invitee in his first candidates forum. Things are looking up! I'll post the video of his statement to the forum when it finishes rendering; in the meantime, a fairly favorable article from the Montpelier Times-Argus: http://www.timesargus.com/article/20100514/NEWS02/5140340/1003/NEWS02

[carbonpenguin]

YouTube - Independent Candidate Dennis Steele Addresses the May 13 Gubernatorial Forum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzR8emq9-qw)