<p>poetsheart:
</p>
<p>What she ^^^ said!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that the courts have already determined that such speech as exemplified by Henry Louis Gates that day is protected under the Constitution and does not meet the standard for seizure on a “disorderly conduct” charge. It’s a good thing “mouthing off” to members of Congress is not considered “disorderly conduct”, or else a lot of “real Americans” might be in handcuffs this very moment.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks that Gates’s behavior in no way contributed to his arrest should read the road rage thread on this same page. I just glanced at it for the first time, and I realized that there were some parallels in the situations. </p>
<p>The young girl who was antagonized and then terrorized (including being hit) by a crazy driver shot the finger back at the crazy driver when he shot the finger at her and then continued to respond in kind to his angry actions. </p>
<p>Nearly 100% of the people posting there said that she in no way asked to be hit or terrorized and that she did not deserve it, but that she used poor judgment in engaging the other driver in the ways that she did, and thus, put herself at unnecessary risk. I mean, the constitution says she should be able to shoot the finger at anyone she wishes (free speech in her own car, after all), and not have that person ram his car into hers, but the reality of the situation is that she didn’t use common sense, and she escalated the situation.</p>
<p>This is exactly what Gates did. Exactly. Not such a hard thing to comprehend, really. Is anyone outraged on behalf of that girl and her trampled rights?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So then , according to this utter nonsense here, Gates broke the law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So then despite that he broke the law, Gates should not have been arrested, according to your nonsense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So then, according to your utter nonsense, Gates is to blame for having been falsely arrested, though he broke no law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which means your Constitution is a sham indeed, that it can be so easily reduced to nothing by a single “catch-all term”. No True American would ever stand for this as you do here. Not in a million years. What you have justified here is an actual sham.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Insane. That you would pay for law enforcement to accurately enforce your law, and then dismiss it as similar to a mere incident of road rage when they fail their duty, is plainly insane, and no True American would ever stand for it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These are two civilians, neither of whom are charged with enforcing the law. They may or may not even know the law in this instance and likely both engaged in illegal behavior. Gates’s behavior was by no means illegal. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gah! The driver who hit her was not responsible for enforcing the law. He was just this thug on the street, acting much like the female apparently.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to what I have read, both of them engaged in reckless driving, which is not protected by the Constitution because it is illegal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Shameful. Gates broke no law. He merely used his right to protest. But Real Americans can never defend this right here, because they hate the man who used them. And we all know exactly why they hate him.</p>
<p>"Except that the courts have already determined that such speech as exemplified by Henry Louis Gates that day is protected under the Constitution and does not meet the standard for seizure on a “disorderly conduct” charge. It’s a good thing “mouthing off” to members of Congress is not considered “disorderly conduct”, or else a lot of “real Americans” might be in handcuffs this very moment. "</p>
<p>Wrong as usual Dross.</p>
<p>[Baucus’s</a> Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare](<a href=“http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/13/baucus_raucus_caucus_doctors_nurses_and]Baucus’s”>Baucus’s Raucous Caucus: Doctors, Nurses and Activists Arrested Again for Protesting Exclusion of Single-Payer Advocates at Senate Hearing on Healthcare | Democracy Now!)</p>
<p>Crowley is trained and paid to know the law - to know his limits. I hold him to a higher standard than an ordinary - or extraordinary as in Prof Gates case - citizen. He had the last clear chance to do the right thing and he didn’t. Taking the liberty of putting a grumpy old man in his place was not the right thing to do. He obviously knew it since he lied about the circumstances afterward.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, first of all, I did not write the paragraph to which you responded.</p>
<p>Secondly, disrupting Congress is an actual offense that is not protected speech. You can’t just waltz into a Congressional meeting and then disrupt it (sheesh!). It is a far cry from protesting government in a public place, or on one’s front porch. That is protected indeed, including mouthing off at members of Congress.</p>
<p>“And we all know exactly why they hate him.”</p>
<p>How dare you speak for “we all.” As far as I can tell, no one on this thread is as twisted as you are and I’ve detected no racists here except for you.</p>
<p>And some advice…calm down. You really don’t want to give yourself a heart attack over this. Don’t you have some kids to homeschool and pass on your toxic views to? ;)</p>
<p>I marvel at the lengths to which you people have gone, and will continue to go, simply to deny Gates his Constitutional rights. Your hatred is boundless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, I am homeschooling them indeed. And you have been a worthy teacher, a most worthy teacher.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Purple, are you not aware of the intent of the protections outlined in The Constitution? Let me try to be clear: The Founding Fathers (whom most “real Americans” revere with a veritable worshipful awe), drafted this document in protest of the policies and actions of a tyrannical government under whose foot they perennially found their necks to be pinned. They used this document as the foundation for the establishment of a new government under which they would never again find themselves in danger of being lawfully “seized” (read, “arrested”) or even killed for speaking their mind in protest against government or being dragged from their property because certain agents of government were offended by their words. I even read that a goodly number of these brave souls and their followers went to war to ensure the liberties set forth therein. I’m surprised you don’t seem to know much about this aspect of our history.</p>
<p>I rather doubt a feud between disagreeing neighbors (or motorists) would have engendered such a move on the part of The Founding Fathers to guarantee such a sweeping set of protections. In other words, "the constitution says she should be able to shoot the finger at anyone in government that she wishes (free speech in her own car or property, after all), and not have that person ram his car into hers, **or be arrested by an agent of GOVERNMENT on a bogus charge of "disorderly conduct, when the real reason is that that agent/agency of GOVERNMENT was “offended” by her actions.</p>
<p>^^^ Ahhh. So nice to read at least one True American.</p>
<p>It is surreal how it is the conservatives here who are so ignorant of what it means to be a True American, that they have already defecated on the Constitution, and continue to do so over and over and over and over and over and over again to perpetuity, all because of their caveman hatred of a black man.</p>
<p>I am unclear on what defines the difference between a So-Called American, a True American or a Real American. However, I am clear on the fact that this thread jumped the So-Called Shark, the True Shark and Real Shark, a very long time ago.</p>
<p>There is hatred on this thread. But it’s not the world against you, Dross. Or African Americans, in general, or in particular with the conversations about Skip Gates. It is you, against everyone else. </p>
<p>We can disagree on the arrest, and many have. There is a difference of opinion on the justification for it, but the reality is that there are racial incidents, and this case didn’t pass the smell test for many posters here. There is a sense that because the majority of people weren’t outraged, that they must be racist.</p>
<p>This is bizarre.</p>
<p>Instead of focusing on the facts, you have thrown around statements that have accused everyone from being racist who doesn’t see this case the same way you do. You have lost posters on this board who respected your views, because you have lost touch with reason.</p>
<p>Perhaps if you take off these blinders, you will realize that the point you have aptly made in the past is lost in all of your hatred of others. You are so fast at accusing others, but don’t see the racism in your own outrageous thoughts and blanket statements. </p>
<p>Believe what you want. Nobody is going to change anyone’s mind, here. But your statements have alienated you from sharing your point of view in a way that is instructional for those who haven’t made up their mind. There are lurkers here who aren’t so vocal. Perhaps even some that don’t understand the issues, as well as you do. But you can’t change anyone’s mind by calling them all kinds of hateful things or disrespecting them, either.</p>
<p>But whatever. You seem to be having fun. This thread is a lost cause, and the real talk on racism and a cure for it ended a long time ago. Unfortunately.</p>
<p>“There is hatred on this thread. But it’s not the world against you, Dross. Or African Americans, in general, or in particular with the conversations about Skip Gates. It is you, against everyone else…
Instead of focusing on the facts, you have thrown around statements that have accused everyone from being racist who doesn’t see this case the same way you do. You have lost posters on this board who respected your views, because you have lost touch with reason.”</p>
<p>And with the excellent post of littlegreenmom above, I am bowing out of this one man boiling, seething, imploding, ugly cesspool of misguided rage. Dross is a victim of his own self-victimization. May reason and rationality rest in peace. Have fun in the echo chamber.</p>
<p>I am not put off by Drosselmeier’s comments. Generally, they have the ring of truth to me, even though I do not think that the Constitution is a sham at all–it is the surest safeguard of our liberties. But he has made the entirely valid point that a person ought to be able to rely on agents of the government to uphold the Constitution (in contrast with a person met at random in a bar or on the road). And to the extent that a person cannot rely on that, the impact of the Constitution is weakened, until countervailing forces (lawsuits, protests, public opinion) re-strengthen it. </p>
<p>An observation on which Drosselmeier and I might not agree is this: I think that some of the people who are willing to seeing Professor Gates’ Constitutional rights infringed are also willing to see the rights of people in the racial majority similarly infringed. (I’ve known a few like that.) This doesn’t make their acquiescence in the violation of someone’s Constitutional rights “better” in any sense, though.</p>
<p>I was one of Dross’ examples and he referred to me as a “so-called American”.
It’s ok if those here agree with me, and it’s ok if they don’t. I may try to persuade some to my way of thinking, and that’s the beauty of a reasonable debate.
I do not however, like being called a “so-called American”. You are skeptical of my citizenship, Dross? Am I less American because I disagree with you? My choice not to press the issue in a bar was somehow wrong? I don’t have the right to make the choice that I feel was best for me?</p>
<p>I was born in this country and have done nothing to renounce my citizenship. I shall ask Dross to withdraw the “so-called American” slur on my heritage, or document proof that I am not an American.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. But consider what is required in the Gates case to bring those forces to bear on the weaknesses. Gates has already endured a remarkable amount of racism from Real Americans because he questioned, in public, the infringement of his rights. Moreover Obama, by association, has incurred a great deal of racism and political pressure for speaking the truth, that arresting a man on a cane for speaking his mind was to act stupidly. Gates would not wish to incur further racism, and he certainly would not wish to be used further by Real Americans to harm the President. There are enormous pressures against him, and yet it was his rights that were infringed. To bring appropriate force against the infringement of Gatess rights will require a force great enough to first overcome all of these pressures, which is to say it will require loyalty to America that is the duty of no man. </p>
<p>Consider further that if you have followed this episode closely and kept track of the timeline that Crowley claims took place, you will conclude that Crowley lied in his report and that the effect was to cause ill-will to Gates. Moreover, Gates denies that he said the things Crowley mentions in his reports, and considering all things, including Crowleys lies, it seems Gates has told the truth. Consider lastly that in addition to all else, Gates was called upon by the President of the United States to sit with the man who lied against him, the Hero of Real America, and make happy with him. It adds up to one thing: the Constitution has failed Skip Gates. It failed him the day the cuffs hit his wrists, and it continues to fail him each ticking moment the forces youve mention fail to bear on this situation. If the Constitution can fail someone as notable as Gates, then surely it can fail me. And indeed it has failed me, many times. It has failed millions and millions of people like me. From the first day of its ratification it began to fail us. With such enormous failure, I hardly see how I cannot think the Constitution is a sham.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. I do understand the disagreement, and agree there is room for it. As for myself, I had considered your view on this issue for sometime before rejecting it. I will tell you what I think on this, and then explain why. I agree that the people here have the capacity to do to a person of the majority race what they have done to Gates. Essentially, they refuse to acknowledge Gatess rights because they hate Gates, and since they have the capacity to hate a specific member of the majority, they could conceivably reduce the Constitution in the same way to deny this person his rights. But this would not eliminate the charge of racism in Gatess case, since they could be refusing the majority member for a reason that differs from the cause of Gatess refusal.</p>
<p>So then why do I insist that racism is the cause for Gates? Ask yourself why anyone who is truly American would so invest themselves in denying the rights of another American as the people here have invested themselves. I have engaged here in an exercise to show their degree of commitment. How can true Americans invest themselves in the denial of rights when it is American to invest in the acknowledgement of rights? What are the possibilities here, especially considering that the people here have no corroborated evidence of how loud Gates was or what Gates said other than what Gates himself has admitted? And how did it happen that so many obviously likeminded people came to the same position about Gates and his rights, though having very little corroborated information?</p>
<p>We might speculate that they do not like Gatess class, but given Gates and the content of his protest, do you honestly think this reasonable? But perhaps it was Gatess arrogance? Very well, then help us understand how they could have possibly have confirmed his arrogance enough such that they could hate it. I have seen Gates many times and have seen no arrogance based on those times. The man is even self-deprecating, calm, aware of his flaws and faults, and jokes about them. At best his arrogance is moot, certainly nothing so powerfully confirmed that we might wish to actually deny the mans rights. So then what is left to us? These people are being driven by the Angry Black stereotype. It is the only legitimate force left us that is powerful enough to cause the sort of un-American behavior we are seeing. The moment they heard that Gates protested his treatment on racial grounds, their aim was to harm him at all cost, even at the cost of the Constitution. They wish the same ill will to me, and for the same reason, simply because I am telling them the unvarnished truth. Essentially, we are seeing in them the same force that has always reduced the Constitution to an utter sham where blacks are concerned.</p>
<p>It really is all about racism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dross, why would you cast aspersions upon the creators of, and principles within, an essentially honorable document, just because there are plenty living under it who violate it and/or do not understand it/and or pervert it? That’s not unlike saying the contents of all religions are a sham, or degrading, because followers of all religions are indeed sinners, and the true adherents of the various religious documents are few, or less than the majority of its members?</p>
<p>I’m sure the integrity of the Constitution risks compromise daily somewhere in this country. That’s why we strive to continue to appoint and confirm men and women of integrity in judicial branches, to examine such violations. That’s why we have media watchdogs warning us against any infringements of a free press, so that such examinations can continue to be illumined in view of the public. It is up to us, the public, to guard vigorously the integrity of the document, so that the operation of the document is not a sham.</p>