And I bet if you were back in the times you would have argued that Burr had infringed on Hamiltons right to free speech by challenging him to that duel. God forbid someone learn not to talk about another mans wife being a whore or his mother having sex with a horse.

"I bet if it was a pro-Bush rally..... "

Yeah...and when's the last time you saw that. We work differently (i.e. - mature).

ummm...pro bush rallys happen all the time...

big difference, though...

pro bush rallys are often misnamed as "fox news"


seriously, i have seen several pro bush rallys, just that he is normally at them...I think he's the president of his own fan club.

Back to the original post...

She had the right to say whatever she wanted, "Free Speech" is a double-edged sword.

However, given the venue, her actions were inappropriate and in extremely poor taste.

Actions like this have a tendency to be counter-productive to the desired result.

I agree it's free speech but I have to question what her true motivations were.

I think her motivations are obvious.

She just chose the wrong place to voice these opinions, IMO.

I still see nothing wrong with the venue, yes 9\11 was a tragedy, but it is the best place for her to get a wide audience, even if people disagree with her or get angry at her for being there they still hear what she is saying

silent_jay,

It's called class. Sometimes also referred to as taste.

Her motivations are not necessarily obvious. I can't speak on behalf of all 9/11 families, but I don't understand how what she's doing helps me or my family in any way. I walk past the WTC 5 days a week on the way to work at the NYMEX and I see loonatics like her all the time.... there motivations may seem simple on the surface, but you really have to wonder if she's just simply using the venue and circumstances to get out the message that she's mentally ill. :crazy:

yeah, that's it

Once again I see people are assuming that she is crazy, has it not already been said that she was all there?

rant immediately following..........

I personally believe that if anyone had direct knowlege that the attack was going to happen and did nothing about it, then they should be incarcerated. This however has not proven to be the case....as of yet.

I also believe that people want to place the blame on the current presidency. This may be due to their immaturity, their paranoia, their political party or because they are just friggin disgruntled that it happened. As of today, I see no clear indication that any action was totally predictable. I do believe that we need higher communication in our intelligence community.

Remember, while we await the next attack, that no matter what, all contingencies cannot be predicted. No one can prepare for all eventualities. I do believe that we will have another attack or attempted attack. Lets wish the people on watch the best of luck in undermining it.

As for anyone that believes that Bush could have prevented that attack and did nothing, I believe that they need a wake up call. The lady (and men) demonstrating was exercising he right to open her mouth and say something not only unfounded, but closeminded, immature and disrespectful. I don't believe she is mentally ill. I believe she is just another ASSHAT with a personal agenda.

/rant

This is based on reading the innitial account and my experience of being in that area at least 10 times a week and knowing the people that are in the area pushing political beliefs. There's a whole crew of whack jobs that are regulars down there.

You're entitled to your opinion of them.

I feel sorry for the familes of the victims, that have to endure the reminder that their loved ones probably were the pawns in a political game.

I do believe that this lady has an assured right to be there, peacefully, and she seems to be rather law abiding. I think anyone with any other mentality will just be one of those types that just bends over and takes it when our gov decides to start taking our civil liberties away.

Be careful not to mix up the system and the people. The Constitution doesn't say we have freedom of speech "except when the government doesn't like it." The only people who don't like it are the ones expressing that they don't like it on this thread, and probably a lot of the people in the street with her that day. These people are not, however, trying to mount a campaign for a constitutional amendment to stop women from screaming in front of the WTC. They are merely expressing their disapproval of her actions. It seems as if you are just as guilty of making assumptions as the folks who are calling her a nutjob.

Furthermore, I take offense to your repeated use of sarcasm in this forum. Your point was made in the first sarcastic post, and repeating yourself with such a tone has done little to advance the discussion. I am referring to this [LINK], if you don't know what I'm talking about.

You copied my quote which said that she lacked class and then you said that I meant she was crazy.

No class = Crazy?

how did you come to that conclusion based on what I said?

If you are going to use my quotes to make a point, please use them correctly and not make up words to further your point.

Of course I don't know if she was crazy, but judging by the number of screaming kooks that I've run into in NY city, it isn't that unusual of a conclusion to jump to.

Next time, see if you can ease up on sarcasm a little, please.

Sorry about the over sarcasm, it was uncalled for.

You take offense of my sarcasm in this forum, or this thread? My point was made in my first post, well I guess it wasn't because people still replied to my posts, now I guess after someones point is made they should just leave the thread and not reply to anything that is said. Either way it's no big deal.

Nice link, I actually thought it might have been something I had said but nope, it's another we have to be nicer to each other thread, oh well maybe it will work this time.

Alright then, the part of my post that was of importance to you should have been
and that's all. The rest of my post was in response to this post
Hope that clarified things.

I can call anyone crazy as I see fit, and I do not need a degree or doctorate to do it. I think her views are supported by a very, VERY small group of people because they are so damned whacked out. That's my right to say her views are whacked out. In addition, I find it interesting the amount of defense she's getting, based on the fact that her claims of conspiracy are so outrageous.

Oh, and stay on topic please.

Let's everyone take a moment to let go of ourselves... and calm the hell down.

Thank you.

I have no problem with someone saying she is a whack job, but when someone calls her a "possible schizophrenic" that sounds like they should have some credentials to back up their position.

When the person who started the thread says she was all there I tend to believe the person who saw her there

Hey, we're all possible schizophrenics. You, especially, silent_jay :)

sorry to drag this up again, but i went back to the WTC site today to do some shopping and look around and go to the southside seaport for some broadway tickets....

anyway, the people were still standing outside the site, were still giving away fliers and such, but, BUT, had no one shouting and no one yelling or anything disruptive...This time, however, there was a crowd of people around and they were discussing the ideology and no one was shouting obscenities calling the group a bunch of nutjobs and so forth. This time, they were actually communicating with the audience that may or may not believe what they have to say. They weren't instantly pissing off people and were just having a much much better dialogue wtih the crowds.

Today, it was fairly impressive and nothing at all like the first time with the screaming lady, maybe someone took a moment to tell them that they were scaring off their target audience.

That is good to hear. Rational discourse is such a rarity in today's society. Everything has become polarized and quickly degenerates into name calling. Ex: liberal wack job, bush is hitler, ect).
Also, I frequently see the far right and far left of the political spectrum as frequently alienating everyone in between. Maybe that is why the new discussions without the screaming are occuring. Perhaps, someone figured this out or possibly it is just the luck of the draw.