Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Remember: Bush is defending our freedoms against terrorists

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Derek Zeanah, Dec 29, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,383
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    From James Bovard.

    Originally posted here:
    Just remember, the terrorists want our freedoms.
     
  2. ARperson

    ARperson Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    742
    Location:
    Indy, Indiana
    Well, that whole thing seems to jive real well with the fascist's campaign finance law. :cuss:
     
  3. ACP230

    ACP230 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,293
    Location:
    Upper Michigan
    Similar techniques were in use when Al Gore campaigned in Michigan's U.P.
    Pro 2nd and logging protestors were kept well away from the building where Gore spoke.
    I didn't hear anyone complaining now complaining then.

    Clinton had the Secret Service arrest people who yelled at him while he was jogging, or at rallies.
    It barely got a mention outside conservative talk radio.
     
  4. NorthernExtreme

    NorthernExtreme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Alaska
    If the author was any more biased in his/her position I would suspect it was written as a joint effort by Hillary, Kennedy, Schumer, Dashell (spelling?), and the rest of the DNC.

    It fits their MO of opinion generated by fear, hatred, and mistrust. (Black vs, White, Old vs. Young, Rich vs. Poor, America vs. Corp. America etc..

    Makes me sick :rolleyes:
     
  5. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,405
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    ACP230 is right. This was standard procedure in the Clinton Administration. Conservatives were outraged. I remember Rush Limbaugh showing clips of protesters being arrested at Clinton speaking events and then showing clips of similar hecklers and protester harrassing Bush the 1st and Reagan. We were outraged then...we need to be just as outraged now :fire:

    Jeff
     
  6. Tag

    Tag Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2003
    Messages:
    599
    Location:
    Marquette, Michigan
    :uhoh:

    sounds like yet another law which was void from the day it was enacted.

    I'll choose to ignore the 'free speech zones ' should I ever encounter them... why would anyone protest where they were told to by the authority they are protesting against? Kind of defeats the purpose.

    stay free.
     
  7. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,383
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    I dare you to peruse one of his books in a bookstore, library, wherever.

    I don't know that I've ever seen a more scathing (and well-documented) criticism of Clinton's approach to, well, anything, than Bovard's book(s).

    Ol' boy ain't liberal, he's just pro-freedom and anti-statist. Sorry if you're backing a guy that supports the kind of behavior that attracts Bovard's attention.

    Here is the one you're probably most familiar with. Also worthwhile are this one, and this one (ignore the last if you can't handle some criticism of the way the WOT is being waged.)

    (Note also that in my world, "he must be a liberal and therefore biased" doesn't come close to justifying the behavior listed here. Do you think it actually happened this way? If so, is that right and proper for Bush to do it? The 1st amendment says Congress shall pass no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Does that make it ok for the executive branch to do it by decree?)

    To all: Clinton did it, and it was yet another thing that we expected from an administration as rotten as that one was. It seems that half of the posters here view Bush Jr as "our guy," and as one who can do no wrong. Or at least, only does wrong as a political maneuver. Or, well, only when those damn liberals make him, because he loves the constitution almost as much as he loves us.

    Hint: it might not be that way in real life. The guys in power just might be a serious threat to freedom in this country,
     
  8. fallingblock

    fallingblock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,574
    Location:
    Between Georgia and Antarctica
    Not at all, Derek.....

    "It seems that half of the posters here view Bush Jr as "our guy," and as one who can do no wrong. Or at least, only does wrong as a political maneuver."
    ************************************************************

    Bush was certainly a better choice than Al Gore for our Second Amendment freedoms. I like his 'can do' attitude...it's just some of the things his administration selects as "to do" which disturb us.

    That's about all that needs to be said about the decay of the political process in the U.S.:eek:

    Choose between the bad guy and the slightly less bad guy?:confused:


    ************************************************************
    "The guys in power just might be a serious threat to freedom in this country,"
    ************************************************************

    And the "Gore team" would have been different, under the same circumstances, how?

    Things are not going well for freedom in Mudville these days....:scrutiny:
     
  9. NorthernExtreme

    NorthernExtreme Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Alaska
    Don't get me wrong, I'm not backing that type of Governmental behavior. And certainly not implying James Bovard is a liberal. I have 2 of his books at on the shelf next to me, I know better.

    My point is the article does little to balance the abuse of the Secret service with information supporting a real threat (small and large) to the President by extremist protesters. In a perfect world there would be no such threat and protesters would be allowed to share the stage with the President in harmony. But in the real world the threat is real and needs to be addressed.

    I feel he could have done a much better job if he acknowledged that threat and found fault with the Secret Service based on unreasonable restrictions (which may have existed), was able to point them out and offer a solution not just criticism and warnings by the handful.

    In a perfect world we would all respect each other and disagree in nothing but a peaceful way. In the real world America would loose a President a week if we allowed unrestricted access to our President due to free speech issues. I’d love to exercise my freedom of speech in the Oval Office once in a while, but the President has much better things to do than listen to me, and those who wish him harm would like to exercise their free speech within harms distance of the President for evil reasons.

    Abuse is never acceptable by anybody, especially our Government. But Mr. Bovard needs to offer solutions along with criticism. Clinton wouldn't have lasted a week if extremists on the right had free access to him, and Bush won't last a week if the extreme left have access to him. Terrorists will win this war if we don’t find a way to find them in time and stop them before it’s too late.

    What the Government is doing (in destroying the Constitution and abusing power) is wrong, and we can all agree on that. But the Dems are notorious for screaming bloody murder and pointing fingers without offering new and realistic solutions to the problem. And Mr. Bovard does just that in that article. How would he protect the president? How would he streamline the search for Terrorists in the US? How would he conduct surveillance operations? And how could he do all this without violating the rights of the people or abuse power? How would he do it and still make the President and the people feel safe (and really be safe)?

    Truth is he can't without the American people (and the government) being willing to accept the limitations of a restricted Federal Government. And the American people (in general) aren't mature enough for that (in general). I'm not saying Mr. Bovard is a liberal, but he sure seems to get support and express himself the same way (except he has legitimate reasons).

    I’m interested in both honest problems (which Mr. Bovard describes) and honest solutions (which he does not). His Bias is in seeing problems everywhere and not seeing the problems he creates by not having a solution or researching potential cures to the problem. He will soon find himself surrounded by people who are mad a He11, and support him to the end, but only create another problem by demanding answers without offering any.

    Just my opinion.

    Best regards and happy New Year to all,
     
  10. Khornet

    Khornet Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    NH
    So what else is new?

    Wanna understand what an anti-Bush protester feels like?

    Try voicing a conservative or Christian idea at any American university. Or in Hollywood.

    Plenty of shame to go all around, but it's not as if the Bush critics don't have a voice.
     
  11. NukemJim

    NukemJim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,201
    When you attempt to define security by what a sign is saying you do not have security except against extremely stupid people. ( yes if they sign says "I will attack the president" you can justifably detain/arrest them that sign could be considered a threat)

    This is not a question of security because instead of arresting the protesters they could have searched them and if they felt concerned stand by them.

    The continued legal harrasment is obscene ! Refusing someone a jury trial when they could be sent to jail for 6 months is a signe that the you country you live in is seriously flawed .

    This is outrageous ! :fire: :banghead:

    /free speech zone/

    :cuss:

    /free speech zone/

    It was wrong when done on behalf of Clinton, Bush, Gore or any other political figure.

    NukemJim
     
  12. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    Do you really believe the country is seriously flawed because of the actions of a few? The entire country? I just don't see it.

    John
     
  13. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    NorthernExtreme,

    Sure, because those assassins would be too dumb to carry a pro-Bush sign or a little American flag, the Secret Service rounds up the little old ladies and grandpas with the 'No Blood For Oil' signs and puts them in the "Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind" zone. :scrutiny:

    Bear in mind that I think the very idea of toting a 'No Blood For Oil' sign is a sure sign of a shallow and knee-jerk grasp of foreign policy, but I seriously doubt that you're going to find the professional hitman or would-be Al-Qaeda martyr by looking for someone lugging a protest sign around. :uhoh:
     
  14. Khornet

    Khornet Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,861
    Location:
    NH
    You're right, Tamara

    and I do think it dishonors Bush to handle demonstrators this way. But I confess having a hard time feeling sorry for them. It's no different from what the Left does every day, in countless places, at work, in schools, in church, in government.

    A pox on anyone who won't let people criticize him. And a double pox on those who routinely stifle their opponents and cry foul when someone looks cross-eyed at themselves.
     
  15. Sean Smith

    Sean Smith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    4,922
    *Shrug*

    Ashcroft is just a creepy SOB.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2003
  16. whoami

    whoami Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    258
    Location:
    Peoples Demokratik Republik of New Jersey
    Not surprising....the legal concept of the 'buffer zone' has been around for many a year, and it's no wonder they initiate one around the president.

    I'm not exactly keen on how it's being done (specifically targeting dissenters), but this kind of 'viewpoint based injunction' has been held Constitutional for almost 10 years at the least. To borrow and paraphrase from a USSC decision:

    "Given the focus of the picketing on 'the president and his staff', the narrowness of the confines around 'his retinue', the fact that protesters could still be seen and heard from the 'sectioned area'...the buffer zone around 'the president and his retinue/motorcade', on balance, burdens no more speech than necessary to accomplish the governmental interests in protecting 'the president' and facilitating an orderly traffic flow on the street."
     
  17. seeker_two

    seeker_two Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Location:
    Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
    Orwell couldn't have written it any better....:fire:
     
  18. JohnBT

    JohnBT Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,233
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    Might still be true no matter who said it. I think the operative word is 'scare' - not discuss, debate or reason, but scare. As in scaremonger. You know the kind. They run about shouting "THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING", when all about them can plainly see it is not.

    John
     
  19. NukemJim

    NukemJim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,201
    When it is the head of the country that is using unconstitutional laws the actions of a few do matter.

    Suppresing of free speech, not violent, disorderly or threatining is WRONG.
    Wrong when the Replicans do it, wrong when the Democrats do it.

    As for the USSC they have never made a bad decision or one that they had to change. Right:rolleyes:

    NukemJim
     
  20. oldfart

    oldfart Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    767
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    "Do you really believe the country is seriously flawed because of the actions of a few? The entire country? I just don't see it.

    Yes, the country IS seriously flawed. But not because of the few or their actions. It is because we allow this sort of thing to continue.
    We are afraid to risk our homes, our jobs or our reputations by taking an active stand on this sort of thing. What we forget, as we reach in the 'fridge for another beer, is that by giving in to these unconstitutional decrees, we place our children and grandchildren in much greater danger.

    The primary purpose of government is to govern. A government will do whatever it deems necessary to accomplish that goal. Stalin "sacrificed" twenty million farmers so that he could nationalize their farms. Our government sacrifices the Constitution to "protect" us from ourselves and we permit it to happen.

    Government is like an unruly child. It will push the limits as far as possible and then push some more. It is up to us, the overly permissive parents, to set limits and then punish when our "child" exceeds the boundaries we have set. Until we are willing to take that step, the unruly child will be master of the house.

    Next year we have a general election. We voters hope to send a message to Washington that will cause the government to change it's ways. We hoped to do that last time too-- and the time before that and the time before that and... You get the idea. Someone has said that doing the same thing over and over and hoping for different results is the definition of insanity. Has anyone else noticed that voting booths have soft walls?
     
  21. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,803
    Thanks, ACP.

    If these liberal "protestors" didn't have such a predilection for violence, (and quite a long track record of it to boot) such measures wouldn't be necessary.
     
  22. Balog

    Balog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Directly below date registered
    Yeah Drjones, anyone who disagrees with Bush must be so prone to violence the BoRs doesn't apply to them. :scrutiny:
     
  23. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,158
    Location:
    Illinois
    I see no problem in NOT allowing a (minority) group of bozos from ruining an event...seems like a local republican got sued for allegedly doing just that at some kind of Democrat rally???

    It seems to me that giving them a place where they can stand and make their lame-a$$ point without ruining the event for everyone else is a great idea....far nicer than arresting them.



    And I agree with Mr. Ashcroft.....to the extent that we show a lack of unity we embolden our enemies.

    The bad guys are envisioning another Vietnam...where we back down because of public opinion...

    IMHO...we invaded Iraq because we needed to stand up to one bully....simply to prove to the rest of them that we were not to be trifled with...
     
  24. rock jock

    rock jock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    In the moment
    This is very true. Russia loved the hippie war protestors in the '60s and used to fund the groups that helped organize them. The vitriolic hate they helped foster resulted in the seriously weakened military in the 70's and put our nation at risk. Today, many of the largest anti-US/anti-Bush protests are funded and organized by socialist groups or those with ties to Islamic extremists. Ignoring this fact is no different than ignoring the potential for abuses on the part of the govt. Both are legitimate threats. Protestors today should be allowed equal access to the President, but I think some kind screening for weapons/explosives might be in order. At the very least, if protestors become violent like many of the leftists/anarchists typically do, the Secret Service should pummel them into dog meat.
     
  25. Obiwan

    Obiwan Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,158
    Location:
    Illinois
    OK...here is an analogy.

    You go to a concert.....a performer that you really enjoy...but he/she wears furs...real furs...

    So a bunch of PETA protestors show up and scream obscenities...so loud that you can't hear the performance.....they refuse to shut up.

    They paid for their tickets...so they have a right to be there.....but should they be allowed to ruin the performance for the people that came to listen...rather than protest????

    I mean..I may get all patriotic in a movie and feel like standing up and reciting the pledge of allegiance or sing the national anthem........but I would expect to be removed....(possibly pummeled by the crowd)

    And if I went back again I might expect to be seated in a far corner..if I was allowed in at all.

    What always slew me was those "Town Meetings" Clinton had...these were supposedly for the exchange of ideas...not just a speech ....and they wouldn't let anyone in that might ask "awkward" questions
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page