Priest stands up to city council tyrant wannabes by canttakesky

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Priest stands up to city council tyrant wannabes

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 03:38
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 920
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, December 19, 2011 2:08 PM

CANTTAKESKY

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=16932

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 3:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

First, he says he has a "constitutional right" to remain at the podium. I don't believe that to be the case. We all have the right to free speech. And that wasn't being challenged. The city council has the right to determine how it conducts its meetings. And while he still had time ( before being told his time was up ) to speak, he in fact did not speak, other than to say he had the right to speak.

He had made his point, and then repeated the point, and was seemingly on his 3rd go around of making the SAME point ( been there before, embarrassed at what he saw, connect the dots, yeah, we got it ), before being asked to sit down. To be honest, he seemed to me to be on the verge of sermon mode, and doing a mediocre job of that as it was, before being asked to yield.

Of course, the tyrant wannabes should have suffered through 1 more minute of his yammering, but it's clear that these sad little kings love their own delusions of grandeur. Hard to tell from that little clip what has gone on before, off camera, or the complete context of how this meeting was being run, but this was kinda much ado about nothing.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 3:59 PM

FREMDFIRMA

He should be more careful, he keeps that up he might find himself press-ganged by the locals into running for City Council....

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 19, 2011 5:20 PM

DREAMTROVE

The council and he have an equal right to peaceably assemble. Govt. is not given a special right by the constitution to conduct business and not be interfered with by the people. It is a govt. of the people by the people and for the people, ergo, if the people don't want it, or wish for it to stop and listen to what they have to say, then it will have to do so. If it is not, then it is an imperialist oppressive regime and should be cast off.

At what point does it become too imperialist and oppressive to be tolerated by a strict interpretation of the constitution? IMHO, the moment it lifts a finger to silence anyone. If that means we're going to be here all day, then we're going to be here all day.

ETA: I find myself in disagreement with Auraptor here. It's clear what went before: Some Pensacola Occupy people were in and ranted. That was their right. The Rev. Nathan Monk was making the point that the council was displaying a lack of tolerance towards the citizenry in violation of the first amendment. He also showed that the police were echoing that lack of tolerance.

If there is no first amendment, then wouldn't the founding fathers have told the people to take up their second amendment and throw off govt and form a new one?

Far from being much ado about nothing, I think that he presented exactly how close to revolution we are.

It is quite fortunate for Pensacola that the officers did not in fact remove him from the podium.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:05 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Rather astonishing that they couldn't just sit there and let this man speak (rather calmly, I thought) for five minutes. They rather found him out of order (for no logical reason I could see) and then two officers appeared to flank him in an intimidating manner, presumably waiting for a go-order that never came.

What damage does it do to let this fellow share his discontent? Were they really unable to take his dressing down for the additional minute he had on his clock?

What will they do when someone truly agitated gets up to speak?

Kudos to the council member who walked out on that meeting, saying essentially, "I'll be out front if you need to talk."

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:37 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Thing is, his grievances WERE heard. Twice. And then he stopped talking, other to say he had the right to talk, and would not yield the mic.

While I agree less of the council's time would have been wasted by just letting him talk, this is largely a phony issue. His free speech was not denied.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:38 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Kudos to the council member who walked out on that meeting, saying essentially, "I'll be out front if you need to talk."

She got my standing ovation.

I was disheartened by the applause from the crowd that apparently approved of the removal of Rev. Monk.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE