That is very sad, however now we have a new law, The Svoboda Law.

The Svoboda Law: "Without any documentation, it is impossible to distinguish between a tea party member and someone who is mentally ill."

Interesting that she's mentally ill, yet her comments weren't all that far from standard Teabagger rhetoric.

" About that "crazy anti-gay lady?" She really is mentally ill, and, interestingly enough, really is a human being. Here comes the liberal guilt, I hope desperately need as a deflection for what my party has been saying all along.

FTFY, subby

giftedmadness: subtil_serpent: Just like libs to pick on someone with a mental disorder just so they can attack conservatives. You should all be ashamed.

this. They have ZERO shame when it comes to making something political. Amazing. If this were reversed you could imagine the up-roar it would cause.

So, what the woman was saying wasn't the same crap coming out of the mouths of those in the right wing? Huh, that's funny, because it was the same crap they spew. She may have said it all in word salad form, but it was the same crap. Just because she's mentally ill doesn't mean that that crap get's a pass. How about instead of being 'outraged' over the 'libs' making a mentally ill woman's political discussion political, you focus on why most people just assumed she was some other out-of-touch teabagger. I think it says more about the state of the right wing and their policies than it does about anything else. At least this woman is certifiably mentally ill. What's the excuse for the rest of your party?

Counter_Intelligent: It's still okay if we found facepalm guy funny, isn't it? Please let it still be okay if we found facepalm guy funny.

I thought that was why this was considered funny instead of sad. I mean, it really is sad that she's so clearly delusional, especially given how scary her delusions seem. But the facepalm guy just turned it from sad into hilarious.

/Really, I don't think anyone was ever laughing at her at all.

Bathia_Mapes: When Ronald Reagan was governor of California (1967-1975) he began closing down mental hospitals. Later as president (1981-1989) he would cut aid for federally-funded community mental health programs.

I was a kid in California when Reagan started throwing sick people into the streets. In my neighborhood, they dropped off this man that I'd hazard a guess who was severely schizophrenic, at the address of his last known relative and left him there. The man had been in an asylum for most of his life, and the relative had moved away at least twenty years prior to Reagan shutting everything down.

For about a year, this poor guy lived in the alley behind where I lived inside a cardboard box. There was a church on my street, but they refused to help him. There was a tiny mom & pop store where he used to go dumpster diving for food. Then one day they found him dead in his cardboard box. Somebody had poisoned him with a casserole loaded with rat poison. The primary suspect was this rich conservative biatch nicknamed "The Evil Queen" whose home faced the opening of that alley. She used to fly into a foaming-at-the-mouth fury everytime she saw him, and she often talked about killing him. But she was never arrested.

Here in Nevada, I know a staunch Republican who bloody hates Reagan because his mother had been kicked out into the streets without his family getting any notification of where or when. They only found out about her death after the police pulled her out of the surf near Long Beach.

Crazy or not, that shiat deserves some ridicule. Because someone, somewhere, thinks and says those same exact things and is considered sane.

Pichu0102: I don't particularly enjoy the fact that people seem to equate being mentally ill to being in the tea party. It's insulting.

I agree, its an insult to mentally ill people.

Honestly, was there ever any doubt that she was seriously mentally ill?

Whether she is schizophrenic or not should factor into what we think of the person but not what we think of what she said. What she said is common among the right and it is heinous.

Linux_Yes:
i don't have to prove anything, other than i'm capable of reading, thinking, and relying on studies done by folks from around the world who know a hell of a lot more than i do on the subject.

Well obviously you don't. Schizophrenia develops before adult-hood, before they would have started smoking. Marijuana and schizophrenia have been pushed since they started illegalizing it, and it's been proven time and time again that it's false.

It can worsen the symptoms of schizophrenia, but it certainly doesn't cause it. The fact that you think it does just shows how little of the subject you actually know. Because if you did do Google it, you would have found out that it's been debunked for decades. Anybody who has taken Psych 101 could tell you this.

If you did Google it, you would know stuff like marijuana use has increased, yet schizophrenia is stable. Which would imply that there is no correlation between the two, let alone suggestion of cause and effect.

You've spewed one of the most easily debunked and outdated marijuana-scare, and you expect people to take you seriously?

Dinobot: Hmm... maybe if you didnt let your sister make a fool of herself, we wouldn't be making fun of her... just saying

Oh, also?

Fark you, you ignorant, self-centered piece of shiat.

Try dealing with a family member that has a serious mental illness. It's not like watching a goddamn dog. It's extraordinarily difficult physically, mentally and emotionally and when you have to do it while also trying to manage a traditional role in our screwed up society, it doesn't take much to wind up leaving your guard down for five minutes which is all it takes for someone without all their "marbles" to go way off the deep end and get into trouble. Try working a regular job to support your own traditional family while also supporting the 24/7 care required for someone with a serious mental illness, running them to and from appointments, and caring for them in the gaps you're not working. Then maybe you'll be qualified to comment on somebody who has actually had to do that in a country that doesn't give a flying fark about any of it and seems at times to go out of the way to make it even harder to help them.

If I could - ITG nonsense be damned - I'd punch you in your two inch dick for making such a stupid comment.

Gyrfalcon: No, just deal with it. She said some really unpalatable things, and she's ALSO schizophrenic. The schizophrenia made her a little more blunt, perhaps, than a "normal" person might have been, but her views are not any different than any other right-wing fringie's. Her associations are a bit looser, but they're not any weirder than the average poster to Wingnut Daily.

When a legitimately mentally ill person has you invoking Poe's Law, the political group in question might be severely farked up.

Hey right-wingers:

CRAZY ANTI-GAY LADY IS PARROTING YOUR TALKING POINTS. THAT SHOULD INDICATE SOMETHING TO YOU.

Marcus Bachmann: "We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn't mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That's what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps...

And let's face it: what is our culture, what is our public education system doing today? They are giving full, wide-open doors to children, not only giving encouragement to think it but to encourage action steps. That's why when we understand what truly is the percentage of homosexuals in this country, it is small. But by these open doors, I can see and we are experiencing, that it is starting to increase."

Rick Santorum: "It's not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality...And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions."

Mitt Rmoney: "It strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of blessed with. Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government. There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action."

CAIN: "I respect their right to make that choice. You don't see me bashing them or anything like that. I respect their right to make that choice. I don't have to agree with it. That's all I'm saying."

OK, so she's mentally Ill. How does that explain similar statements from Alan West, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'reilly... (I could go on. And on... and on..

Liberal guilt? It wasn't the liberals that gutted the mental health care system in this country. It was Reagan.

I spent 20 years caring for a schizophrenic cousin, fighting for every scrap of help I could get for her from a system that would rather have these people roam the streets homeless. Tell me again how farking guilty I should feel.

So, If I'm understanding subby's whargarbl properly... Liberals are suppose to feel guilty because conservative talking points are indistinguishable from the rantings of the demented?

Hey, teabaggers. It has become impossible to tell the difference between your racist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic hate-rants, and the ramblings of a mentally ill person. Think about that for a second.

ToxicMunkee: Why, as a liberal, am I always told I need to feel guilty?

I think you've got it a bit mixed up. As a liberal you're capable of feeling guilty. Conservatives are incapable of feeling guilty because, see, they are sociopaths.

Chariset: If she's mentally ill, why is she speaking in public?

Wow - what a remark. I suppose you mean why is anyone giving her a platform rather than why isn't she locked up in some dungeon somewhere.

Nonetheless how does one define mental illness? I don't think it's her anti-gay stance that defines it. I'm sure some will disagree, but that's her opinion and it may simply be a product of her mental illness.

But at what point do you tell people they cannot speak in public?

The definition of mental illness seems to be expanding and if you wish to limit their right to free speech we should all be scared.

I guess the "normal" Freepers who spout the same crazy crap in blogs and such are just undiagnosed schizophrenics.

Future News Flash:

Neo-Conservatism Recognized as Mental Disorder.

she's not some crazy conservative

Whut? She's the definition of crazy conservative. If she was slightly less batshiat crazy schizophrenic she'd be listening to Rush, watching Fox News, and be slightly more articulate. That's their prime demographic.

Rodeodoc: Liberal guilt? It's Bush's fault.

Wasn't it was Reagan that ended all kinds of mental health programs in the 80's?

WTF Indeed: That is very sad, however now we have a new law, The Svoboda Law.



Doesn't Svoboda mean "Freedom" in Ukrainian?

eddiesocket: Close2TheEdge: I would ridicule her for her comments, focusing specifically on those comments.

Her comments are a by product of her mental illness. You are creating a distinction utterly without meaning to justify your assholery.

No, her comments are a product of right-wing propaganda, most likely aquired in a church environment. She is a teabagger AND mentally ill. We can just speculate on the coincident.

Something tells me that you are either the subby, or feel an equally strong urge to project your quilt for USING her on us liberals. We try to talk our idiots out of embarassing themselves.

eddiesocket: TsukasaK: The woman is a nutter.

Yes, she's diagnosed. So let's all point and laugh!

Psst. All those people you see laughing. It's not at her.

Crude: If conservatives existed, you might get them to admit to a mistake, but then again, a conservative wouldn't attack a mentally ill person.


These are Neocons. Know your enemy. The disgusting turds that vote for any slimeball with a (R) by their name, rationalized or dismissed any behavior by Bush, and are constantly attacking any viewpoint that differs with theirs....that is a Neocon.


A conservative would disagree with someone, but defend their right to say it. Not so with these pieces of shiat. They seek to silence all dissenting voices. As a liberal, I miss the conservatives. I miss actually respecting the other side.

FTFY

I'm not sure I can really bring anything of value to this thread, especially so late into it, but I did get a lot out of it, and can relate to all of it. I suffer from schizophrenia, had my first major break when I was 20. I'd lost 2 family members in unrelated incidents leading up to it, was grieving heavily, and pretty much lost the urge to eat. I read the bible a lot, not out of any personal piousness, just to try to get closure. The break was bad, and I was institutionalized for a time, and then went to live with my family for some time.

I'm not sure how to describe a schizophrenic break, I saw a video a few years ago, when I was @ 25, might have been from a link here at Fark. It was a guy alone getting a pizza delivered, and the terror ramps up. The first time I saw it, I'd been through a number of breaks, and it scared the shiat out of me, because it hit too close to home. I had actually at one point refused to eat the spaghetti because I "knew" it was poisoned.

It made me realize that maybe, just maybe, all those incidents and memories I'd been holding onto, convinced they were real, convinced they might mean something, might just be illusions. I'd seen doctors aplenty, had a psychologist on call, but that hammered it home.

And I did smoke pot in my youth, my mid-youth, and my late-youth. I was smoking a lot of hash about the time I had my first break, I don't think it caused it, but I know it exacerbated it. I kept smoking through a lot of my 20's, and I continued to have breaks. I was on medication for a while, but when I learned what side effects Zyprexa could cause, and wanted off it, my gp wouldn't give me an alternative, because it cost more. So I weaned off it, and continued to have breaks... I couldn't accept diabetes or permanent psychosis as a side effect, because they are not side effects, they are diseases in their own right. I got an apartment and that's the point I stopped smoking pot, because paying the rent, cable, internet, and utilities starts meaning more than being stoned.

I've had small breaks since then, and I've smoked pot socially since then, unrelated. Every time I smoke pot I feel myself go a little crazier. Just massive paranoia piling in. And the next day, or the next, I'll realize how much I'm not like I was then. I'm not against pot, but if there's anyone who's read this, and is like me, maybe try not smoking. When I don't smoke pot, I don't feel like people are looking at me. I don't feel like they see my dark side, or my past. I don't think they are talking to everyone else about me. When i smoke pot those are the things that haunt me.

Coming back to the thread at hand, I came out 13 years ago to a family that didn't want to hear it. It was about a year after my first break. My psychologist suggested it... I still think that guy was a quack, he could never find my file in a reasonable amount of time. They tossed me out. I wandered for around 6 months, and thought a lot about my situation. I'm not attracted to women, marginally attracted to men... I don't want to be with anyone. I don't enjoy social interaction, but am very good at it, and I like attention. I've gotten very good at telling people what they want to hear. I've shared many a bed, and I carry condoms every time I leave the house, because disease scares me, and sex does not. I have never been a homicide, or a homicider.

When I watched this vid, I face-palmed along with the guy in the back, not because "dat biatch is crazy", just because the crazy was a different configuration than I'm used to. Everything She said I've heard before, from valid Republican sources, and She has the right to say it. I have the right to face-palm it too. From what I've read she doesn't focus on gay rights, she focus' on the weeks agenda. This week was gay rights, next week it'll be something else. She said her piece, I applaud her for standing up for her beliefs, and I forgive her for potentially offending people, but I still crack up when I watch that video. I won't apologize for that.

Close2TheEdge: I don't see why anybody should feel guilty about calling out her hate-speech. Yes, she is mentally ill, and that was clearly apparent from the video. So what? Vitriol is vitriol and should be called out regardless of the mental state of the presenter. I don't feel an iota of guilt ridiculing her.

^^^
This.

Time for another game of "CRAZY OR CONSERVATIVE?". Which quote was made by a crazy or by a conservative?


"Liberal women "have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness - to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient. That's what we need you to do. Because if you don't, then the debt will continue to grow...deficits will continue to grow."

""P- E- N- I- S goes into the anus to rupture intestines. The more a man does this the more he'll be a fatality or a homicider."

""This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.""

""A huge percent of gay men in school grounds molest boys, partly because they don't have AIDS yet..."

/ trick question. They're ALL crazy.

Close2TheEdge: I don't see why anybody should feel guilty about calling out her hate-speech. Yes, she is mentally ill, and that was clearly apparent from the video. So what? Vitriol is vitriol and should be called out regardless of the mental state of the presenter. I don't feel an iota of guilt ridiculing her.

Same here. The mentally handicapped in our society strive to be recognized as equals. Well, being equal includes being called out for making hateful speeches.

A long time ago, there was a handicapped skinhead in England who was born without arms. But he was perfectly capable of stomping minorities with his steel-toed boots. Because he was born without arms, should society give him a pass? I don't think so.

giftedmadness: wow. a compelling argument you make. tell me WHY i am retarded, please.

Personally, I'm going with "You're incapable of writing a simple declarative statement without a minimum of three grammatical errors."

I can feel bad for her a person while knowing the reason she spoke these outrageous things are the pervasive, manipulative right wing media. She can be pitied. I can't feel much reasonably for the people who have poisoned her mind with these terrible things.

So if I understand the headline (and gigantic morons like giftedmaddness) correctly, Liberals need to feel guilty because they called a woman "crazy" who has been clinically diagnosed as "crazy".

That's the exact problem I have with Republicans. They are mind-bogglingly stupid human beings. The are literally the lower third of the Bell Curve.

A Terrible Human: I have a sister in law who was convinced that gay men were gay because their testicles were in their neck.

Holy Jeebus. The only reason I didn't LOL at that is because I went to Tennessee to do charitable work. We were digging a foundation for a family that had no money. The neighbor kids were of course interested in our activity. I learned that these little kids were chewing tobacco. Their parents gave it to them because they didn't have enough food and tobacco fought hunger pangs.

A Terrible Human: FloydA has just bought you a $5 - One Month TotalFark Subscription - Non-Recurring -- see your email for more details. (If you didn't get an email, fix your email address here.)

Wow,you really didn't have to Floyd. No wonder I've had you favorited for a long time.

/Thank you! :D

Sabyen91: I understand if the average moron treats mental illness that way but I suspect in Kentucky the average moron gets elected.

They do. I've had to tell many,many non mentally ill people some basic shiat. I have a sister in law who was convinced that gay men were gay because their testicles were in their neck. That was one of the most farked up ones I heard from somebody that was supposed to be sane,she's just stupid. I've had former friends tell me Obama was going to put all the white people into slavery. I argued with a friend of mine yesterday about gay marriage. She kept going on and on about the bible and how people who are gay won't get into heaven and blah,blah,blah. She also said atheists were the devil. She asked for my opinion thinking I would just agree with her but I didn't. I told her straight out that I thought marriage was about love and that religion shouldn't have anything to do with government. I'm tired of just agreeing with stupid people because I don't want to argue with them. Though then again this is the same women who believes in the stupidest of conspiracy theories,does stimulants and has a brother who is so far in the closet he's finding christmas presents yet watches Fox news religiously taking everything they say as the truth.

BuckTurgidson: Sabyen91: A Terrible Human: Sabyen91: That sounds like someone about ready to move into the group home I worked in. It is terrifying that some of them were normal for years. ANYBODY could turn out that way.

She isn't the only mentally ill person I've met around here. I've know more than 3 paranoid schizophrenics,people with bipolar and one woman who the police around here called the nightwatchman because she would sit outside and watch the parking lot all night. She would call the police screaming and crying that there were dead bodies everywhere. She also had a habit of picking things like dip people had spit out and sticking them in her mouth. The last time I saw here was when a guy,people said he was her brother,got killed. She called the police screaming about dead bodies in the parking lot and overflowing from the dumpster. Though when the police came and looked there weren't any dead bodies but there was a bloody wallet,towel and pair of shoes from the guy who was murdered. There was another schizophrenic guy I knew who was an alcoholic. He beat the shiat out of another guy who was beating his wife. The cops shook his hand for that.

/If only everyone could get the treatment they needed.

What kind of awful Dante-inspired place do you live in???

We call it, "Earth".

Back in the day, we'd very publicly persecute, brutally torture, and burn alive these flawed citizens in the glory of our Lord and Savior, thus maximizing our tithes and minimizing heresy.

But in current times we're far wiser economically.

We actually do have places for some of them. They are group homes. Reagan really screwed up the whole system but not all developementally disabled people are on the street.

giftedmadness: You think it's morally sound to lock up the mentally ill?

I went though a period of my life where six weeks in a mental institution would have been the best possible thing for me. But that sort of thing is no longer possible as we don't have a functional public health system in this country (praise be to Ronald Reagan).

cmb53208: Sabyen91:

Rahm is a HORRIBLE Democrat.

Rahm's just a horrible human being.

Agreed. fark him.

Genevieve Marie: I actually hated that this got as much attention as it did as an example of bigotry when it was a pretty text book case of schizophrenia. I mean... the subliminal messages part of her ramble? That's something anyone who's ever watched more than one episode of Law and Order should have been able to recognize as schizophrenia.

And yea, she's not harming herself or anyone else, so she has the right to do this. Ignoring it is really the best way to handle it.

The people that agree with her ARE harming people.

Sabyen91: whidbey: cmb53208: Perhaps someday we'll act like a civilized nation and do something for the mentally ill besides throwing them in jail. But the cynic in me doesn't hold out a lot of hope

1. Stop electing Republicans

What??? Then we have to pay for it!

Oh we're paying the price all right.

cmb53208: Perhaps someday we'll act like a civilized nation and do something for the mentally ill besides throwing them in jail. But the cynic in me doesn't hold out a lot of hope

1. Stop electing Republicans

PsychoTherapist:
. It should not be illegal to be mentally ill.



It shoudn't be, but the scariest thing is that this nation's three largest mental health providers are jails: Riker's Island in NYC, LA County Jail, and the Cook County Jail in Chicago. In fact the sheriff of Cook County begged Mayor Rahm Emmanuel to not close any city mental health centers. He did anyway becuase he didn't want to betray his "Because fark you, that's why!" leadership style.

That aside, I do take the idea that Ms. Svoboda should not be allowed to speak very personally: I was diagnosed with bipolar disorder a few years ago and went around undiagnosed prior. What she said was ridiculous, but the fact is that anyone who would deny Ms Svoboda the right to speak could quickly do it to me.

Many posters mentioned that the old Soviet Union used to label dissidents as insane and lock them away. Meanwhile in this country, we denied those who were mentally ill the right to vote, marry, speak, work, get a driver's license, what have you. They were often locked away in mental institutions where the care consisted of forced sterilzation and experimentation.

Through medication most mentally ill people are able to function in society, and it can be difficult dealing with the side effects of medications: Seroquel for example causes considerable weight gain and drowziness.

Perhaps someday we'll act like a civilized nation and do something for the mentally ill besides throwing them in jail. But the cynic in me doesn't hold out a lot of hope

PonceAlyosha: Counter_Intelligent: PonceAlyosha: Yeah no. Locked in syndrome.

Yeah, Yeah. I'd rather be paralyzed than lose my self.

I'd rather have no connection to reality and have a sense of agency then slowly go mad, completely aware of my utter inability to help myself.

I actually learned of Locked-in syndrome earlier today from reading "list-verse". As I have a phobia of being paralyzed-buried alive-unable to control my body I have to agree with Counter. I would rather lose my mind. At least I have no clue what that would be like. Hell, it might not be that bad.

Counter_Intelligent: PonceAlyosha: Yeah no. Locked in syndrome.

Yeah, Yeah. I'd rather be paralyzed than lose my self.

I'd rather have no connection to reality and have a sense of agency then slowly go mad, completely aware of my utter inability to help myself.

bugontherug: quatchi: Even crazy people have the right to free speech as long as they are not harming anyone.

Sure. But we also have the right to judge other people, whether or not they are harming anyone. I'm asking whether our judgment was fair in this case, given long accepted principles of moral responsibility in western civilization.

bugontherug: quatchi: Even crazy people have the right to free speech as long as they are not harming anyone.

Sure. But we also have the right to judge other people, whether or not they are harming anyone. I'm asking whether our judgment was fair in this case, given long accepted principles of moral responsibility in western civilization.

I have absolutely zero problem with the city council saying that her speech is inflammatory, insulting and short on citations, and that such remarks are not welcome in a public forum. In short, lies and hate.

Kind of doubt an already right-leaning city government is going to go that route.

The difference between her rhetoric and the rhetoric from the right, e.g. marrying dogs, is not very different.

That's the joke.

Linux_Yes: The My Little Pony Killer: Linux_Yes: Weaver95: Linux_Yes: oh, and weed greatly increases the chances of getting Schizophrenia in young, developing brains. the studies over the last 20 or 30 years show a clear link between weed and schiz..

oh look - a lie.


oh, look. someone who's never used Google and done any research on the subject. ignorance truly is bliss, ain't it?

Oh look. Somebody with an agenda.



ok, i take everything back. all Republicans should smoke as much weed as they can. and all mentally ill people should just salute the flag and be a proud american and stop whining about being mentally ill.

see, that was sooo easy!! God i like easy! its so....well......easy. no work required.

For someone who isn't a troll, you sure do dodge every rational refutation like a troll and hone in on only the most inflammatory and unsourced responses like a troll.

You hop-scotched over every single post that debunked the "cause" part of your claim, every statistic showing a rise in pot use and no such rise in schizophrenia, and every quoted study observing a self-medication relationship, not cause-effect.

At least other trolls lead to hilarious Pony memes. You're useless.

werekoala: Here's a hint: her little speech is just like gay marriage--it has NO effect on your own life. It doesn't hurt you to listen to it, and it doesn't change anything for you at all.

So be real careful about being willing to use the government to stop things you find distasteful. You'll find yourself in unpleasant company...

Here's a shocker:

All point of view aren't necessarily valid. Or should be tolerated.

Linux_Yes: i'm not against being high. been there, loved it. i'm just not willing to play chemical russian roulette with my brain. if i knew i'd be dead in a year anyway, i'd smoke weed every nite. but i can't live as if i've only one year left. young people seem to think weed is just a harmless giggle.

What crazed right-wingers actually believe.

I love it when you actually post, Linux. Brings out the real you.

Biological Ali: Gyrfalcon: Chariset: If she's mentally ill, why is she speaking in public?

And what exactly would you like done to prevent her from speaking?

She's not dangerous.
She's not unable to care for her basic needs.
She's still entitled to all her Constitutional rights because she's done nothing to lose any of them.

Merely because she's schizophrenic doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's doing--what would make you think she's not able to speak about things as she understands them? Or do you hold to the notion that crazy people are somehow subhuman? Do elucidate, as a mentally ill person myself, I'm completely fascinated by your opinion.

Is it really that unreasonable to have some mental competency requirements for speakers at venues like this?

fark yes, there is. There was a time when many of the things we take for granted today were considered crazy & dangerous. And it all hinges on who gets to decide who is crazy. One of the USSR's favorite tricks was declaring dissidents crazy, stuffing them with drugs, and tossing them in a mental hospital for life.

The medical rule of thumb is, as long as you can tell me who you are, where you are, and when you are, you're assumed to be competent to make your own decisions, no matter how whackadoodle I might think those decisions are.

That lady is alert and oriented. Unhinged, but barring dangerous behavior, she has the right to go her own way, same as we all do.

And I will gladly allow a nutball to speak for 5 minutes, as opposed to cavalierly disregarding the rights of my fellow citizens, as you seem to.

Here's a hint: her little speech is just like gay marriage--it has NO effect on your own life. It doesn't hurt you to listen to it, and it doesn't change anything for you at all.

So be real careful about being willing to use the government to stop things you find distasteful. You'll find yourself in unpleasant company...

PsychoTherapist: whidbey: PsychoTherapist: I'm a little shocked to see all the comments to the effect that she should be locked up, and very, very heartened to see the comments reminding people that this woman, who does not represent any danger to anyone, has human rights.

I don't think she should be locked up, but this speech she made to the council really does have to be her last, given the circumstances.

When free speech becomes incoherent hate filled slander, it crosses the line.

I think you need to review the definitions of "slander" and "free speech".

I think you need to agree with me that the council shouldn't be allowing her to speak there anymore.

PsychoTherapist: Subby here. I posted this item because I've met this woman and because I thought it was important to take a second look at the story. The headline ("liberal guilt") is 1/2 trolltastic and 1/2 wistfully tongue in cheek. I'm a liberal, and if there ever was a time to feel liberal guilt, it would be after watching ourselves mock Ms. Svoboda.

I'm a little shocked to see all the comments to the effect that she should be locked up, and very, very heartened to see the comments reminding people that this woman, who does not represent any danger to anyone, has human rights. It should not be illegal to be mentally ill. (I liked the LJS' note that the city council is used to her and lets her speak quite regularly.)

I don't know Ms. Svoboda's case personally or who's been involved in her mental health care. She would probably act differently if she were regularly taking antipsychotic medication, but, as long as she is not in danger nor dangerous, she has the right not to do so. I've worked with people like her and I know how heart-wrenching and difficult it can be for family members to stand by and watch this happen, but my take is that liberty ain't always pretty.

Thanks for listening, Farkers, and thanks for being your usual kind, snarky, compassionate, cruel selves. This is why I've stuck around so long and why I continue to waste so much time here despite all the things I should be doing instead.

(plus: Yay! My first approved link!)

Unless you believe Ms. Svoboda can't discern right from wrong, or lacks free will, she is still morally responsible for being a bigot. Unless so excused, she deserves to be mercilessly mocked for that reason alone.

I myself suspend judgment. I can say that even schizophrenics usually lose the insanity defense in criminal trials.

PsychoTherapist: I'm a little shocked to see all the comments to the effect that she should be locked up, and very, very heartened to see the comments reminding people that this woman, who does not represent any danger to anyone, has human rights.

I don't think she should be locked up, but this speech she made to the council really does have to be her last, given the circumstances.

When free speech becomes incoherent hate filled slander, it crosses the line.

Subby here. I posted this item because I've met this woman and because I thought it was important to take a second look at the story. The headline ("liberal guilt") is 1/2 trolltastic and 1/2 wistfully tongue in cheek. I'm a liberal, and if there ever was a time to feel liberal guilt, it would be after watching ourselves mock Ms. Svoboda.

I'm a little shocked to see all the comments to the effect that she should be locked up, and very, very heartened to see the comments reminding people that this woman, who does not represent any danger to anyone, has human rights. It should not be illegal to be mentally ill. (I liked the LJS' note that the city council is used to her and lets her speak quite regularly.)

I don't know Ms. Svoboda's case personally or who's been involved in her mental health care. She would probably act differently if she were regularly taking antipsychotic medication, but, as long as she is not in danger nor dangerous, she has the right not to do so. I've worked with people like her and I know how heart-wrenching and difficult it can be for family members to stand by and watch this happen, but my take is that liberty ain't always pretty.

Thanks for listening, Farkers, and thanks for being your usual kind, snarky, compassionate, cruel selves. This is why I've stuck around so long and why I continue to waste so much time here despite all the things I should be doing instead.

(plus: Yay! My first approved link!)

weezbo: Um. Homosexuality has long been considered evil and, until fairly recently, was clinically categorized as "crazy." And now here we are, evolved enough as a society to recognize that the ramblings she has against it are, themselves, unacceptable.

In the history of western civilization, homosexuality has only been seen as "evil" since the rise of Pauline Christianity in the 200s. And really, it tended to be ignored in most places until the retrenchment of the Catholic Church during the Counter-Reformation in the 1600s.

It was classified as a mental illness because the people who founded our modern mental health profession had bourgeois Victorian morals (I'm looking at you, Freud).

What we've seen in the last 110 years or so is not a sudden acceptance of homosexuality, but a return (more or less) to a status quo which has been ignored for about 500 years.

James F. Campbell: Gyrfalcon: But keeping her out because she's crazy would not be reasonable.

What does a democracy gain in tolerating evil, ignorant, or crazy people?

Um. Homosexuality has long been considered evil and, until fairly recently, was clinically categorized as "crazy." And now here we are, evolved enough as a society to recognize that the ramblings she has against it are, themselves, unacceptable.

Would we have gotten here with a tradition of repressing, legally in addition to socially, the "evil" and "crazy" people speaking on their behalf?

Additionally, allowing the people with the crazy and evil notions to speak out in a public forum allows us to respond. It's when they take dehumanizing, violent, crazy rhetoric behind closed doors and into echo chambers with no possibility for those who disagree to respond that the stage is set for tragedy.

Even so, it may be not so much what a democracy has to gain in allowing the categories you mention to speak in a public forum as how much it has to lose in constructing and enforcing rules to disallow it. Especially if you consider freedom a hallmark of a healthy democracy.

Linux_Yes:

i'm not against drugs. just know that what you put in your head could cause permanent, subtle changes that aren't necessarily a good thing.

hell, do meth. you can really screw your brain up in a matter of months. why take 1 to 3 years with weed? get it done fast.

So what kind of drugs have you been on to make you this stupid? Are you seriously suggesting anyone who has ever smoked pot for more than 3 years has brain damage or a mental illness?

Linux_Yes: Dwight_Yeast: Linux_Yes: that doesn't change any facts just because you chose to ignore them.

No, you made an assertion. You need to support it with a citation or citations for it to be considered a fact.

I'm not ignoring anything; show me the study and I'll be happy to discuss it. Tell me "go look for it yourself" is like "proving" the existence of fairies at the bottom of your garden by handing someone a flashlight.

/It's been nice, but it would be netter if you'd go back to wherever the fark you've been; things were quite pleasant without you. Cheery bye-bye!



if i had my way. all Republicans would smoke weed on a daily basis. that way, they'd be at a huge disadvantage in the brain department. and that would make things much easier for the Progressives. course, it would take a couple of years to have the right effect.

that's the beauty of mind alerting substances. often, the changes in the brain as a result of using them are Permanent.

i'm not against drugs. just know that what you put in your head could cause permanent, subtle changes that aren't necessarily a good thing.

hell, do meth. you can really screw your brain up in a matter of months. why take 1 to 3 years with weed? get it done fast.

When no one else in a thread seems to come anywhere near agreeing with me, I usually step back and ask why.

The answer is never "because I'm right and smarter than they are, and they don't want to admit it."

Linux_Yes: look closer........you can't read the leaves (no pun intended) because the forest is in the way....


...and back on ignore you go, for another four years.

/you're like a groundhog with senile dementia.

ToxicMunkee: Why, as a liberal, am I always told I need to feel guilty?

Because Republicans, being sociopaths, don't have the ability to feel guilt. Thus, in their minds, liberals are always "feeling guilty" about something. They see it as a sign of weakness, or worse, effeminacy. It's the same reason they're so pissed off by the idea of President Obama treating other nations with respect instead of contempt. Basic concepts like "human decency" are alien to them, and therefore "wrong".

Linux_Yes: that doesn't change any facts just because you chose to ignore them.

No, you made an assertion. You need to support it with a citation or citations for it to be considered a fact.

I'm not ignoring anything; show me the study and I'll be happy to discuss it. Tell me "go look for it yourself" is like "proving" the existence of fairies at the bottom of your garden by handing someone a flashlight.

/It's been nice, but it would be netter if you'd go back to wherever the fark you've been; things were quite pleasant without you. Cheery bye-bye!

Wait, did we really need a Follow-up to tell us that the woman was batshait crazy?

Linux_Yes: oh, look. someone who's never used Google and done any research on the subject. ignorance truly is bliss, ain't it?

I had forgotten how irritating you can be. You must not have posted for a while.

Weed can indeed exacerbate already present schizophrenic and other personality disorders, but it doesn't directly cause them.

James F. Campbell: So are you saying that society is better off because it tolerates evil, ignorant, and insane people?

FTF relevance, but yes.

vossiewulf: The issue is that it has become extraordinarily difficult to distinguish between someone who is mentally ill and someone who is an honest racist gay-hating tea party GOP Real American™.

They gave the lunatics the mic a long time ago to keep the red vs. blue distraction soap opera going while they rob the country blind.

This especially retarded era of "partisan" politics is the smoke screen thrown up while the looters finish their work and move to Dubai. Everyone seems to be falling for it, too.

Biological Ali: PonceAlyosha: Biological Ali: Is it really that unreasonable to have some mental competency requirements for speakers at venues like this?

Yes. Our government doesn't just rule for the sane, and logistically there's no way to sort out the nutters.

My point is basically that if you're not sane to the point of actually being mentally incompetent then not only have you wasted everyone's else's time by not saying anything coherent, but it's also not clear the degree to which you can even appreciate the significance of the exercise you're undertaking (to say nothing of the unwanted attention that you might get from people who hear what you have to say and, not knowing your situation, take it the wrong way). Now it's of course true that the government has to secure the welfare of everyone under its jurisdiction including the mentally incompetent, but allowing them to speak independently at political venues doesn't necessarily make anybody (including them) better off in itself.

Stopping them from speaking is more effort than it could possibly be worth. The constitution doesn't magically stop applying to those we view as mentally unfit.

FTA: "To me, it shows how little society really cares about people with mental health issues," Patrick Svoboda said."

Hmm... maybe if you didnt let your sister make a fool of herself, we wouldn't be making fun of her... just saying

If you look at the comments on HuffPo, people on the right wing were coming out to defend her before they knew she was schizophrenic.

For real.

I missed the boat on the original video, but fark you, submitter. That this woman has a serious mental illness does not excuse the hundreds of thousand if not millions of people who have no such excuse for spouting such lunacy. When your supposedly legitimate opinions are indistinguishable from those of a schizophrenic, maybe you should reconsider your goddamn opinions.

I hope this woman gets help (ironically, shiatmitter, exactly the sort of help conservatives seek to deny people who aren't wealthy).

I hope the people who say equally idiotic things in their anti-gay crusades and don't have the legitimate excuse of mental illness get hit by a farking bus.

/ all that said, those are some pretty messed up statements
// although not far from the farthest right lunacy, they should have at least triggered some alarms, so in MSNBC I am disappoint
/// in the rest I am sadly not surprised, especially not HuffPo which is a haven for idiots

smells_like_meat: Censoring people who's politics you don't like by calling them crazy has been a tactic of despots throughout history.

Yes, and some people actually are crazy. Come on, people. I thought liberals were supposed to be the reality-based community. You aren't doing anyone any favors by claiming that this lady's view of the world is just as valid as yours or mine.

F*CK this crazy lady and her ignorant, insane rambling. She belongs in a mental institution.

Gyrfalcon: But keeping her out because she's crazy would not be reasonable.

What does a democracy gain in tolerating evil, ignorant, or crazy people?

Hey, subby:

I really think some of you are getting bent out of shape by people simply questioning why she is talking. It isn't questioning the validity of allowing her to speak and it isn't insinuating all crazy people should be locked up.

However, if her caretakers know that she has this disease, why would you let her get in to this position where she COULD say "crazy" things in an open forum?

Little kids are prone to making ridiculous comments and most people watch them and take the time to watch them to prevent them from doing something embarrassing or stupid.

I think I see what's happening here...

Some crazy woman is saying out loud what certain people are trying to say through legislation.

It's sad that the lady is crazy, and this may be seen as a useful deflection.

What is your excuse? Are you crazy? Should you be removed from office and committed perhaps?

Linux_Yes: Schizophrenia is some serious sh*t. the worst of all mental illnesses.

Yeah no. Locked in syndrome.

Schizophrenia is some serious sh*t. the worst of all mental illnesses.

I see this as another spectrum of Poe's Law. Poe's Law is you can't distinguish trollish conservative speech from real conservative speech. In this case, you can't distinguish crazy conservative speech from real conservative speech. They're pretty much the same though. In Poe's Law, the speaker is acting crazy to parody how crazy conservatives are. In this instance, the speaker actually is crazy.

Liberal guilt? Good one.

What next, GOP credibility?

vossiewulf: The issue is that it has become extraordinarily difficult to distinguish between someone who is mentally ill and someone who is an honest racist gay-hating tea party GOP Real American™.

THIS

ToxicMunkee: Why, as a liberal, am I always told I need to feel guilty?

It always amazes me how the Republican party manages to sound like my mother. She loved people to feel guilty over ridiculous things too.

Why, as a liberal, am I always told I need to feel guilty?

eddiesocket: Close2TheEdge: I would ridicule her for her comments, focusing specifically on those comments.

Her comments are a by product of her mental illness. You are creating a distinction utterly without meaning to justify your assholery.

BTW, how do you know this to be true? Are you on her medical team? Lots of "sane" people have the same kinds of delusions and make equally outrageous statements in public forums, and I don't see you going all movie of the week for them. For all you know, the illness only magnifies what she already believes. Or do you think the mentally ill can't possibly have ANY cogent thoughts? Talk about being an asshole.

Stop white knighting her. If you want to do something, donate to a charity for mental illness research since the right-wingers whose nonsense she parrots certainly won't do shiat for her.

eddiesocket: Pharque-it: eddiesocket: Close2TheEdge: I would ridicule her for her comments, focusing specifically on those comments.

Her comments are a by product of her mental illness. You are creating a distinction utterly without meaning to justify your assholery.

No, her comments are a product of right-wing propaganda, most likely aquired in a church environment. She is a teabagger AND mentally ill. We can just speculate on the coincident.

Something tells me that you are either the subby, or feel an equally strong urge to project your quilt for USING her on us liberals. We try to talk our idiots out of embarassing themselves.

Something tells me you're an idiot who probably feels bad about making fun of a crazy woman and decides to blame imaginary "teabaggers" for putting her put to it.
I'm actually a gay liberal, but thanks for your armchair psychology. If you had RTFA, you would see that she's not a "teabagger" or a conservative or anything, politically. She talks twice a month on a variety of crazy topics. Everyone just lets her speak and then moves on. No one "used" her.

So you know her personally then? Or are you just full of shiat?

Coelacanth: Aside from the George Bush thing, I could respect you, and I'm being honest, not trollin'.

I think Bush honestly thought he was doing the right thing. Cheney, on the other hand, was the spawn of Satan.

I voted for Bush the first time around. The second time around, I didn't vote. I felt like Bush was doing a bad job, and I didn't particularly think Kerry would do any better. In 2008, I voted for Obama. Now, lest some drooling neocon lunatic jump in and scream "So you're a Democrat then! Derp derp derp!", let me point out that Obama has one hell of a lot more in common with old-school Republican values than McCain/Palin did. If Republicans could just look past (D) beside Obama's name (and, frankly, the fact that he's black) I think they'd see that he's been a legitimately conservative President. And yes, I realize that I'm going to have people from both sides attacking me for saying that, but it's true.

Hell, Republican icon Ronald Reagan was probably more "liberal" than Obama. Reagan gave blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. He raised taxes one hell of a lot more than Obama has. Reagan organized a Weeners team to address the AIDS crisis practically before mainstream America even knew there was an AIDS crisis. But the hypocrisy works both ways. You'll never see a Conservative giving Obama credit for all the Conservative things he's done, and you'll rarely if ever see a Liberal giving Reagan credit for anything other than the Iran/Contra debacle.

Anyway. Don't misunderstand me- Bush was incompetent and not exactly the brightest man we ever elected. But he wasn't purposely evil. That was Cheney's job. :) I don't expect anyone to sing Bush's praises- he did a bad job. I just thought that the people drawing Hitler-Staches on him were every bit as silly as the people calling Obama a "Socialist". Words have meaning. Bush is NOT a Nazi, and Obama is NOT a socialist, and it cheapens the meaning of the words (and displays an incredible amount of ignorance) to claim that they are.

Holy smokes. I just defended George W. Bush. *sigh*

eddiesocket: Pharque-it: So you are 100% sure that you do not have to list yourself (or have somebody list you) for speaking in that meeting?

You don't see a difference in the two things you just said? List yourself or have somebody list you. Nice parenthetical, as if it was just an afterthought and not the exact opposite of "list yourself". I'm sure she had to write her name down on a list or something. That doesn't equate to anyone "sponsoring" her.
Did you even bother to RTFA? She shows up twice a month and speaks her legally allotted time. She even brought a stick once and said it was her mother. Should we point and laugh at that, too? Why not? Fark her.

DNRTFA. Not necessary IMHO. The point is that she is mentally challenged, and looks like, acts like and sounds like an average teabagger. I find that amusing. And quite telling.
So let the freak-show go on, dear idiots!

I should feel guilty? About a mentally ill person who's spouting racist crap? Nope, sorry, you're still a bunch of racist scumbags. But thanks for playing!

eddiesocket: Pharque-it: So you are saying that she just went there and spoke?

Yes, idiot. That's how public forums work.

Please oh please find me the citation that shows someone "sponsored" her.

Hey, idiot to you too, idiot!

So you are 100% sure that you do not have to list yourself (or have somebody list you) for speaking in that meeting?
Have you ever spoken at a public meeting other than in kindergarten? Probably not.

That poor lady had clearly been misled (indoctrinated?) by some group and somebody (sponsors?) had provided her with the insane talking points that she felt obligated
(pressured by her personal demons) to present at this public meeting.

And I reserve my right to laugh at the message, and the idiots who indoctrinated her! Sad that the right-wingers are using such methods to get their sick message across.

TsukasaK: Homicider: I'm really a Republican. You nutbags are the ones who aren't really Republicans.

So having been rather jaded by many years of Repuglican (not to be confused with Republican, a now marginalized political party) shenanigans, I'm a little bit unclear on what a Republican who's not a complete whack job stands for.

Could you you enlighten me?

Sure.

I support capital punishment, but wish we never had cause to use it.
I support a woman's right to an abortion, but wish women never had cause to use it.
I think being a Christian means helping the poor, not attacking them.
I think I owe a debt to the Americans who came before me and built this Nation.
I believe in loyalty to America and our President, even if I didn't vote for him.
I support our troops, but I do NOT support war crimes.
I think George W. Bush did the best he knew how to do. As has Obama.
I think it's OUR job as citizens to fix our economy.
I think it's a sad commentary on our society that we pay guys like Limbaugh and Moore to be professional Hate Mongers.
I think Glenn Beck is quite literally retarded.
I think Bill O'Reilly probably isn't that bad of a guy in real life.
I think Sarah Palin is a bad joke.
I think the Tea Party is the worst thing that ever happened to Republicans.
I think it's better to admit when you're wrong than to double-down on the Crazy.
I believe that we should all mind our own business.
I believe the only people responsible for the sanctity of my marriage is me and my wife.
I think Arizona has every right to enforce American Immigration law if the Feds refuse to do so.
I think Michelle Malkin is an evil harpy who will spend eternity boiling in hell.
I believe Ann Coulter will be right beside her.
I believe that Republicans ought to stand for fiscal responsibility, not bigotry and hatefulness.
I think Ron Paul has a lot of integrity. He's crazy, but he has integrity.
I think Mitt Romney has absolutely zero personal integrity, and would probably eat human feces if he thought it would bring him political power.

eddiesocket: Raharu: I don't feel an iota of guilt ridiculing her. She should not be ridiculed.

Huh?

Pharque-it: She must have had sponsors in order to be given the opportunity to speak.

Incorrect, and face-palmingly ignorant. It's a pubic forum. You don't need "sponsors" to speak at a public forum.

So you are saying that she just went there and spoke?

Face-palming ignorant.....

eddiesocket: Absolutely no one is saying what she said was sacred. And it's self-evidently mean and vile. But if it makes you feel better to mock the mentally ill, by all means, go right ahead. Apparently there is very little in your life that you have going for you.

If a mentally ill person is saying something mean and vile and hurtful, it doesn't somehow make it wrong to call out such behavior as mean and hurtful and vile just because they're mentally ill.

The woman is a nutter.

Linux_Yes: moralpanic: Linux_Yes: Weaver95: Linux_Yes: oh, and weed greatly increases the chances of getting Schizophrenia in young, developing brains. the studies over the last 20 or 30 years show a clear link between weed and schiz..

oh look - a lie.


oh, look. someone who's never used Google and done any research on the subject. ignorance truly is bliss, ain't it?

If you're going to make the claim, the onus is on your to prove it.


get off your duff and go to google and type in Schizophrenia+Marijuana

i don't have to prove anything, other than i'm capable of reading, thinking, and relying on studies done by folks from around the world who know a hell of a lot more than i do on the subject.

And yet you're apparently not able to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Congrats.

/people with existing or incipient mental illness frequently self-medicate. High rates of present or past drug use among people with a mental illness is not proof that drugs cause the mental illness, a distinction every reputable study in the field points out.

ToxicMunkee: Why, as a liberal, am I always told I need to feel guilty?

I'm a big fan of this notion because the unforeseen implication is that Conservatives are sociopathic.

eddiesocket: Raharu: Close2TheEdge: I don't see why anybody should feel guilty about calling out her hate-speech. Yes, she is mentally ill, and that was clearly apparent from the video. So what? Vitriol is vitriol and should be called out regardless of the mental state of the presenter. I don't feel an iota of guilt ridiculing her.

^^^
This.

You guys are horrible people. It's not "hate speech" when she doesn't even know what she's saying. She could've just as easily been going off about woodland elves or squirrels. Mocking the mentally ill is about the lowest human being can get. Go fark yourselves.

You know what, you are right. About the last bit.

I don't feel an iota of guilt ridiculing her. She should not be ridiculed.

Shes sick, but that didn't make what she said sacred. It should still be called out as insane, mean, and vile.

whidbey: werekoala: whidbey: werekoala: Here's a hint: her little speech is just like gay marriage--it has NO effect on your own life. It doesn't hurt you to listen to it, and it doesn't change anything for you at all.

So be real careful about being willing to use the government to stop things you find distasteful. You'll find yourself in unpleasant company...

Here's a shocker:

All point of view aren't necessarily valid. Or should be tolerated.

I hope you're trolling, man. Seems there's a lot of kids with pure hearts and no sense of history who would happily destroy our country with good intentions.

Sweet tapdancing Christ, freedom of conscience (ie, opinion, or points of view) is one of the cornerstones not just of America, but the entire Post-Enlightenment human-liberty philosophy that the entire Western word hangs their collective hats on. It sure beats feudalism all to hell.

And people want to shiatcan all that because some bag lady said some goofy things?



You people scare the shiat out of me...

Tell me how the city council refusing to allow this woman's disruptive hate-tinged (let's face it) lies about homosexuality to be uttered at a civil public forum equates to jeopardizing your rather dramatic turn of phrase "freedom of conscience?"

Answer: it doesn't. Every public forum should have rules of engagement for its participants. If you fark up and start spewing incoherent hate speech, you should be out of there.

It wasn't disruptive. Goofy word salad, but not disruptive. No profanity, spoke in a calm manner, stood still.

I strongly disagree with the content of her speech, but be careful. Do I get to silence anyone who says mean things about gays? About Obama? About Muslims? About Christ? About mom and Apple pie?

fark no, I don't. If we fall so far down the rabbit hole that we allow ourselves to shut up anyone we don't agree with, half the country will end up locking up the other half.

Therefore, my stance is that a public forum has the right to impose restrictions on time allotted, on conduct, etc, so long as they are imposed uniformly. But the minute you start getting into regulating what kinds opinions a person is allowed to express, you're going down a dangerous road.

The essence of civil liberties is this: "I vehemently disagree with what you are saying, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it". Voltaire, I think.

Point is, if you're willing to open the door for the state to start deciding what is and is not an acceptible opinion to express, you're headed down a very dark and different road than America has walked these past 250 years.

You may say to yourself that you would only stop the most egregious and vile speech. That you would be doing everyone a service by cleaning up the public forum. But these things take on a life of their own. Ask Robspierre.

Is this some soft of inverse reverse Poe's law?

werekoala: whidbey: werekoala: whidbey: werekoala: Here's a hint: her little speech is just like gay marriage--it has NO effect on your own life. It doesn't hurt you to listen to it, and it doesn't change anything for you at all.

So be real careful about being willing to use the government to stop things you find distasteful. You'll find yourself in unpleasant company...

Here's a shocker:

All point of view aren't necessarily valid. Or should be tolerated.

I hope you're trolling, man. Seems there's a lot of kids with pure hearts and no sense of history who would happily destroy our country with good intentions.

Sweet tapdancing Christ, freedom of conscience (ie, opinion, or points of view) is one of the cornerstones not just of America, but the entire Post-Enlightenment human-liberty philosophy that the entire Western word hangs their collective hats on. It sure beats feudalism all to hell.

And people want to shiatcan all that because some bag lady said some goofy things?



You people scare the shiat out of me...

Tell me how the city council refusing to allow this woman's disruptive hate-tinged (let's face it) lies about homosexuality to be uttered at a civil public forum equates to jeopardizing your rather dramatic turn of phrase "freedom of conscience?"

Answer: it doesn't. Every public forum should have rules of engagement for its participants. If you fark up and start spewing incoherent hate speech, you should be out of there.

A challenge:

Create a standard & set of rules that would allow the state to preemptively silence the speech of "crazy people" (like the one this woman gave), that could not also be twisted into allowing the state to shut YOU up, if the state desired. And could not have been used to supress MLK, gay rights advocates, Vietnam War protesters, etc.

Or should we all just trust your "gut" to make that decision for everyone?

Extra credit: explain how you are any different from all of the other domineering asshats who throughout history have ...

I think you'd better adjust your tinfoil hat.

And freedom of speech is not absolute in this country. Her behavior is more than enough grounds to ask that she not speak at any further council meetings.

I'm sorry if that makes you mad.

Republicans trying to defend the craziness expressed by mentally ill elderly woman while, in the same time, seeking compassion for her being crazy.
The simple truth is that she is EXACTLY as crazy as Republicans are, only she is certified crazy. Which makes her a person, not an idiot.

So, basically crazy lady is saying the same crap that certain parties are trying to make in to law.

This says something about certain parties.

This is a bad situation. I'm sure it causes all sorts of pain for crazy lady and anyone who cares about crazy lady, and I'm sorry to see it.

But subby, she is obviously insane. What is your excuse for holding the same positions?

Guidette Frankentits: Wait so she expresses the views many conservatives hold.
Then liberals attack that.
Then it turns out she was mentally ill.
Then conservative still basically use her and attack liberals at the same time?

Who really has the mental disorder here again?

You gotta admit, it's clever in a farked up kind of way.

We need a corollary to Poe's law to handle situations like this.

randomjsa: What's the problem? You, and plenty of other liberals in this thread, are pretending that this example is clearly an indication of all Tea Party/GOP members, so I see absolutely no reason that I can't equate the actions of 2-5 OWS members to all of liberalism.

I think everyone here realizes you're an idiot, but let me answer your question anyway.

There are plenty of documented cases of Republican politicians saying and advocating nearly exactly the same thing as Crazy Lady. Yet you will find exactly zero Liberal politicians advocating blowing up bridges. Again, you're a moron, so there's no way you will understand this concept.

Crud: If liberals existed

Ahh, that was only your first fart in a long & endless list of insincerity, out and out deliberate lies, and putrid gut bubbles.

Im surprised Skinnyhead and Winterwhile are not in here defending Mom on Mothers day.

Crude: If liberals existed, you might get them to admit to a mistake, but then again, a liberal wouldn't attack a mentally ill person.


These are Leftists. Know your enemy. The disgusting turds that vote for any slimeball with a (D) by their name, rationalize or dismiss any behavior by 0bama, and are constantly attacking any viewpoint that differs with theirs....that is a Leftist.


A liberal would disagree with someone, but defend their right to say it. Not so with these pieces of shiat. They seek to silence all dissenting voices. As a conservative, I miss the liberals. I miss actually respecting the other side.

That statement would actually make sense if the political right hadn't gone so far off on the derp end. The defeat of Dick Lugar by Richard Mourdock is the latest example. Richard Mourdock's view of "compromise" is the exact opposite of what compromise should be. The inability of this Congress to address any real issues is directly due to the Republicans in Congress unwillingness to compromise with the Democrats in any way. Even when handed a political victory in the spending cuts vs revenue increase ratio.

Gyrfalcon: Biological Ali: Is it really that unreasonable to have some mental competency requirements for speakers at venues like this?

It's really unconstitutional.

Yep. Apparently Boulder City Council can't even bar the guy who sends them "I know where you live!" notes from speaking at meetings. Although, after a notable incident a few years back, a court did decide that he can be required to wear pants at the meetings.

Crude: If liberals existed, you might get them to admit to a mistake, but then again, a liberal wouldn't attack a mentally ill person.


These are Leftists. Know your enemy. The disgusting turds that vote for any slimeball with a (D) by their name, rationalize or dismiss any behavior by 0bama, and are constantly attacking any viewpoint that differs with theirs....that is a Leftist.


A liberal would disagree with someone, but defend their right to say it. Not so with these pieces of shiat. They seek to silence all dissenting voices. As a conservative, I miss the liberals. I miss actually respecting the other side.

So if I disagree with your post, I'm "attacking " your mental illness?
The fact that I disagree with your opinions, and that your opinions are inspired by mental illness, does not add up to me ridiculing your illness.

Crude: If liberals existed, you might get them to admit to a mistake, but then again, a liberal wouldn't attack a mentally ill person.


These are Leftists. Know your enemy. The disgusting turds that vote for any slimeball with a (D) by their name, rationalize or dismiss any behavior by 0bama, and are constantly attacking any viewpoint that differs with theirs....that is a Leftist.


A liberal would disagree with someone, but defend their right to say it. Not so with these pieces of shiat. They seek to silence all dissenting voices. As a conservative, I miss the liberals. I miss actually respecting the other side.

Liberalism is a political philosophy. "Leftist" is a term used to lump several similar political philosophies together.

Please don't try to re-define words. It makes you sound idiotic.

I hate to use ignore, but I don't hate it that much.

I don't see why anybody should feel guilty about calling out her hate-speech. Yes, she is mentally ill, and that was clearly apparent from the video. So what? Vitriol is vitriol and should be called out regardless of the mental state of the presenter. I don't feel an iota of guilt ridiculing her.

Yes, as opposed to all the sane people who think gays are destroying civilization.

bulldg4life: randomjsa: FloydA: Came here to say this. When a sincere party member cannot be reliably distinguished from a schizophrenic, there is a problem with the party.

When domestic terrorists can't be distinguished from actual liberals, there's a problem with the party.

Because somebody with a mental illness saying something liberals don't like is so much worse than actual liberals trying to blow up a bridge.

What's the problem? You, and plenty of other liberals in this thread, are pretending that this example is clearly an indication of all Tea Party/GOP members, so I see absolutely no reason that I can't equate the actions of 2-5 OWS members to all of liberalism. So all liberals are terrorists and liberal ideas breed terrorism. Do you see how stupid you sound now? You should probably surrender to police immediately since you're a terrorist and all.

This would be why liberals don't have a clue what conservatives think or believe while conservatives know precisely what liberals think and believe. We don't have to delude ourselves in to thinking liberals are something other than what they actually are in order to be against everything they stand for and we don't need to twist and pervert their beliefs in our own minds in order to make what we think seem more acceptable.

Don't you have a city council meeting to go to?

They turn off the mic on him now.

AmorousRedDragon: Not allowing outright, blatantly obvious lying to your audience helps, and fits your criteria.

According to Gyrfalcon, not allowing someone to lie to their audience would deny that person their freedom of speech. After all, who should be responsible for defining such nebulous terms as "truth" and "lie"? Governments did that in the past to oppress people!

The Turing Test: If you speak to a homophobic computer, and you can't tell whether its homophobia is real or programmed, then by any reasonable definition, the computer is, in fact, a teabagger.

weezbo: Even so, it may be not so much what a democracy has to gain in allowing the categories you mention to speak in a public forum as how much it has to lose in constructing and enforcing rules to disallow it. Especially if you consider freedom a hallmark of a healthy democracy.

As long as democratic-like societies continue to include the voices of people who seek to destroy it or undermine it, those societies will never know peace. Remember: we are the reality-based community. What benefit is there in saying that this woman's view of the world is just as valid as mine or yours?

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov, column in Newsweek (January 21, 1980)

About that "crazy anti-gay lady?" She really is mentally ill, and, interestingly enough, really is a human being. Here comes the liberal guilt, I hope.


You're right, I do feel bad.

SN1987a goes boom: gilgigamesh: If republicans weren't such an obstacle to health reform, perhaps this woman could get insurance and access to the help she needs.

Which is exactly why liberals should feel no guilt for this women. Its not like we withheld vital treatment for her, or else defunded programs to help her. That rests on conservatives.

True, but they won't feel guilty either, as they don't give a damn about people like her.

gilgigamesh: If republicans weren't such an obstacle to health reform, perhaps this woman could get insurance and access to the help she needs.

Which is exactly why liberals should feel no guilt for this women. Its not like we withheld vital treatment for her, or else defunded programs to help her. That rests on conservatives.

Rodeodoc: Liberal guilt? It's Bush's Reagan's fault.

FTFY

Gyrfalcon: Chariset: If she's mentally ill, why is she speaking in public?

And what exactly would you like done to prevent her from speaking?

She's not dangerous.
She's not unable to care for her basic needs.
She's still entitled to all her Constitutional rights because she's done nothing to lose any of them.

Merely because she's schizophrenic doesn't mean she doesn't know what she's doing--what would make you think she's not able to speak about things as she understands them? Or do you hold to the notion that crazy people are somehow subhuman? Do elucidate, as a mentally ill person myself, I'm completely fascinated by your opinion.

After two minutes of nonstop Vogon poetry, I think you could safely cut her time short.

Dimensio: Attempting to silence incoherent, idiotic speech enables conspiracy theorists who assert an effort to silence an undesired "truth". Incoherent hate speech must not be suppressed; the only effective means to combat it is to let it be spoken so that it may be openly mocked.

The council has already disallowed her the use of a prop because she was being obnoxious with it.

This is not a free speech matter. It is an inability to behave oneself in a civil manner while participating in a public forum.

Uncle Scrooge McShryke IDH.

Homicider: This thread has become freaking unbelievable. Really, it boggles the mind. I'm logging off now, while I still have some small hope for the future of humanity left flickering in my soul.

I wouldn't worry about it too much.

This thread has become freaking unbelievable. Really, it boggles the mind. I'm logging off now, while I still have some small hope for the future of humanity left flickering in my soul.

NotShryke: derp

Nice to see you too.

notShryke: I am mocking pure stupidity, as it should be. I am sure you clap your hands and stomp your feet when Maher or Maddow do so, correct? Do you instead denounce them as assholes?

I doubt it.


That's because (no offense) you're a farking idiot.
I'm a Republican. But not your kind of Republican. I don't like Bill Maher because he's a hateful asshole. Much the same reason I'm not particularly fond of you. See, you think that there's two sides to the world: "Liberal and Conservative". I think there's two sides the world: "Assholes and decent people". Rush Limbaugh is an asshole. Michael Moore is an asshole. They're not opposites, as people like you love to believe. They are, in fact, exactly the same type of people.

Personally, I'm for affordable health care... just like Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney was, back when he lobbied for it in his home State.

notShryke: gilgigamesh: If republicans weren't such an obstacle to health reform, perhaps this woman could get insurance and access to the help she needs.

Right. Obviously it's a matter of money that keeps this woman insane.

This is how the left thinks all ills are instantly cured: throw (other people's) money at it.


I have to wonder why people like you act like such complete assholes. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

rynthetyn: Sabyen91: rynthetyn: Sabyen91: rynthetyn: Sabyen91: I have been to Stuart. It is embarrassing.


Oh, this isn't Stuart where I'm from. We're actually far better than Stuart, at least where I'm from it's possible to not continue to be a dumbass because there are plenty of cultural opportunities to expand your horizons, world class art museums, film festival, all sorts of good stuff. The hicks are too scared of that stuff though, so like half the people are educated and cultured and the other half think the president is going to make them white slaves.

Heh, I have been to Florida twice. The first time was Disney and the second I drove down there so my girlfriend could have sex with her girlfriend (I didn't know that at the time).

That kind of thing could turn anyone off Florida forever. Especially the Disney part. Place creeps me out.

Ryne, I went down there and felt so stupid(my girlfriend was a whore). The weirdest thing though is I had no idea that those orange things on the trees were oranges.

/Seriously, it was weird.

Sounds like something out of a Carl Hiassen novel.

We went down there for her to meet her biological father. I was so stupid. I am guessing she slept with her father and some random chick. Crazy? Yes.

giftedmadness: Sabyen91: giftedmadness: the freedom from want!?
lmao!?

comeon now people. you can't really believe in this shiat.

You are a farking retard. Congrats.

wow. a compelling argument you make. tell me WHY i am retarded, please.

Only after you explain the excuse for the rest of your party. This woman is mentally ill, what's your excuse?

Sabyen91: . I think Wisconsin might be really progressive in this case (though Walker will change that). We take care of our mentally ill fairly well..

Unless they're in Milwaukee County, then they get sent to the Milwaukee County Mental Health Complex where patients had an opportunity to be sexually assaulted, ignored, left in restraints, or otherwise ignored by staff. A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel series exposed these conditions only to have not one person held responsible. This of course occured under the watch of County Executive Scott Walker.

giftedmadness: Sabyen91: giftedmadness: the freedom from want!?
lmao!?

comeon now people. you can't really believe in this shiat.

You are a farking retard. Congrats.

wow. a compelling argument you make. tell me WHY i am retarded, please.

You win, dude. You have convinced people you are NOT an asshole.

whidbey: giftedmadness: subtil_serpent: Just like libs to pick on someone with a mental disorder just so they can attack conservatives. You should all be ashamed.

this. They have ZERO shame when it comes to making something political. Amazing. If this were reversed you could imagine the up-roar it would cause.

0/10

I think at this point is a matter of deciding what previous troll he was before.