Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Obiwan, no offense, but comparing a Bush speech to an entertainment event is probably not going to turn out the way you envisioned it. 
Remember: Bush is defending our freedoms against terrorists
- Thread starter Derek Zeanah
- Start date
- Status
If you say so...I actually like the Analogy
Going somewhere to hear someone speak/perform...and some a$$h0le$ ruining it.
But I suppose don't have a lot of use for protestors of any kind.
Want a "down on Bush rally"...then hold one....
Don't be surprised if he doesn't attend.
Going somewhere to hear someone speak/perform...and some a$$h0le$ ruining it.
But I suppose don't have a lot of use for protestors of any kind.
Want a "down on Bush rally"...then hold one....
Don't be surprised if he doesn't attend.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Yeah, it's good the 98-lb weakling finally got up the courage to stand up to that big ol' bully. Good thing we risked the dime to send off to George W Atlas.
Please don't make me dig up links to the violent anti-"war" "protests" that happened in SF, as well as other places.
These liberal "protestors" have a very long and well-documented track-record of using violence.
Keeping them away from the president is just prudent.
And I think Obiwan's analogy is pretty good, but here's a better one;
This situation is no different than letting a convicted child molester with a long and well-documented record into a daycare center.
TallPine
Member
How hard would it be to make a sign that flipped over, or otherwise had some way of changing the message real quick ....?
From "Pro-Bush" to "Protest" etc.
From "Pro-Bush" to "Protest" etc.
ARperson
Member
The real argument here is whether there is a justifiable cause to remove the "protestors" to a "free speech zone" for security reasons. I say there is not.
Our enemies aren't exactly stupid. But we are if we think a bunch of senior citizens with placards protesting a specific foreign policy decision are the ulitmate imminent threat and danger to the President that they are treated like.
Our enemies aren't exactly stupid. But we are if we think a bunch of senior citizens with placards protesting a specific foreign policy decision are the ulitmate imminent threat and danger to the President that they are treated like.
seeker_two
Member
Then you don't understand the meaning of the First Amendment or what makes the United States of America a bastion of freedom.
We CAN disagree about how to solve a problem. We CAN speak in public about those disagreements. We don't have to limit our expression to the "official party line" like our Cold War opponent nations did. And, even when we don't agree, we can still get things done.
What EMBOLDENS our enemies is when their actions or threats cause our government to supress those opinions and discussions and drastically change our way of life. That's how they know that their actions--or implied threats--are making a difference.
Remember, the Taliban didn't allow opposition protests, either...
OK, this is the second time I've seen this said.
Who ever said the protestors are senior citizens?
Sure, there are a bunch of old, rotten hippies who are too stupid or whacked out on LSD flashbacks to know that the 60's are looooong gone, but most of the protestors out there that I've ever seen are anything but seniors. I'd say 90%+ in the 18-30 range.
Not like it matters...saddam would qualify for the senior discount at Denny's, yet he managed to kill a lot of people...
My friends...the constitution must protect everyone equally. If it was an outrage for demonstrators and hecklers to be arrested, detained or moved out of sight during the Clinton administration...It must be an outrage of equal proportion during the Bush administration. There used to be free speech in this country. Sadly congress voted to limit it, the president signed it and the supreme court said it's legal.
Jeff
Jeff
I understand the Constitution and our freedoms just fine.
I have no problem with people peacefully protesting whatever they want.
I happen to think that there is a time and a place for it however.
I have a little problem with people being so rude as to interrupt someone elses party
So I have no problem with those people being segregated....they get to make their point without ruining the experience for those that showed up for a positive reason.
I have a real problem with people that take advantage of their freedoms, since they tend to screw things up for the rest of us.
I tend to tune out the raving lunatics anyway
I also didn't ask anyone to change their opinions...and I fully support making your displeasure known...
But that can be done while still presenting a united front to our enemies!
There is no REQUIREMENT to exercise your first amendment rights.
You also have a right to act like an adult
I have no problem with people peacefully protesting whatever they want.
I happen to think that there is a time and a place for it however.
I have a little problem with people being so rude as to interrupt someone elses party
So I have no problem with those people being segregated....they get to make their point without ruining the experience for those that showed up for a positive reason.
I have a real problem with people that take advantage of their freedoms, since they tend to screw things up for the rest of us.
I tend to tune out the raving lunatics anyway
I also didn't ask anyone to change their opinions...and I fully support making your displeasure known...
But that can be done while still presenting a united front to our enemies!
There is no REQUIREMENT to exercise your first amendment rights.
You also have a right to act like an adult
Balog
Member
Obiwan: how is holding a sign not supportive of Bush being "disruptive?"
Drjones: Please don't make me dig up links to the violent anti-"government" actions committed by young black men in every inner city in America.
These young black "gang bangers" have a very long and well-documented track-record of using violence.
Keeping them away from the president is just prudent.
And if you can't see the difference between someone holding a sign that doesn't say what you want it to and someone raping a child then I'd suggest you might need to reconsider your values. Suppressing dissent is the hallmark of totalitarian states. I guess it's ok to crush the BoR's as long as it only applies to those we don't like, huh?
Drjones: Please don't make me dig up links to the violent anti-"government" actions committed by young black men in every inner city in America.
These young black "gang bangers" have a very long and well-documented track-record of using violence.
Keeping them away from the president is just prudent.
And if you can't see the difference between someone holding a sign that doesn't say what you want it to and someone raping a child then I'd suggest you might need to reconsider your values. Suppressing dissent is the hallmark of totalitarian states. I guess it's ok to crush the BoR's as long as it only applies to those we don't like, huh?
NorthernExtreme
Member
How many of you have heard of the MOB effect. It's when otherwise well intentioned people become swept into frenzy when they begin to feed off the emotions of others around them. It culminates in riots and mass disorder like the city riots that happen when a city professional sports team wins a national championship. Does it happen all of the time, NO. But it is a real security consurn for the Secret Service, YES. I'll ask again, is it worth the risk to the President to allow access to him at all costs?
If the secret service arrives and sees protesters standing on the corner waving signs and that's it they don't get messed with. If on the other hand they are seen being forceful in their position and generating an environment that has the potential to escalate, the Secret Service has a responsibility to separate them. Lets face it even the president doesn't have enough security to protect him from a mob, and then there is the issue of potential harm to anybody in the area if something does happen.
Again I'm not suggesting people should be dragged away just because they disagree. And I've seen plenty of protesters at Bush events on the news and in person so it's not like it's a blanket policy to haul off protesters and violate their rights every time bush is in town. (Don't lie to me and suggest it happens all of the time!)
So a good question is, why does it happen some of the time and not others? Or why were these people targeted and not others.
Is it possible their actions brought this upon themselves and there is something we're not being told? It wouldn’t be the first time we've only been told the parts of the situation we are intended to hear and not the rest of the story. I'm not saying this is the case, but the truth is we just don't know for sure.
Not a Flame on anybody. I'll be the first to agree with the outrage once I know for sure.
If the secret service arrives and sees protesters standing on the corner waving signs and that's it they don't get messed with. If on the other hand they are seen being forceful in their position and generating an environment that has the potential to escalate, the Secret Service has a responsibility to separate them. Lets face it even the president doesn't have enough security to protect him from a mob, and then there is the issue of potential harm to anybody in the area if something does happen.
Again I'm not suggesting people should be dragged away just because they disagree. And I've seen plenty of protesters at Bush events on the news and in person so it's not like it's a blanket policy to haul off protesters and violate their rights every time bush is in town. (Don't lie to me and suggest it happens all of the time!)
So a good question is, why does it happen some of the time and not others? Or why were these people targeted and not others.
Is it possible their actions brought this upon themselves and there is something we're not being told? It wouldn’t be the first time we've only been told the parts of the situation we are intended to hear and not the rest of the story. I'm not saying this is the case, but the truth is we just don't know for sure.
Not a Flame on anybody. I'll be the first to agree with the outrage once I know for sure.
"how is holding a sign not supportive of Bush being "disruptive"
If that is all they do I have no problem...and if that was all that ever happened, there would not be an issue...
But if I was holding up a "Dean Sucks" sign, I would understand if they wanted me to stand "over there"
As I said...a few ruin it for everyone!
The MOB effect is a real concern....go watch a little league game if you don't believe me!
I saw anti-war protestors set up across the street from a group supporting our troops....
To be fair, it was probably not their sole aim to show a lack of support for our troops, but their timing and positioning kind of sucked.
When the majority of the passing motorists started Honking for the troops and Booing the anti-war group ....the anti war group got ugly...
Which didn't improve their standing..
With the liberal media being what it is, protestors should not have to crash someone elses party to make their point.
Often times it seems they resort to that tactic to hide how pitfully few their numbers are....
They are kind of like terrorists in that they resort to disruptive tactics in order to be noticed.
Now....please....let the record show that I did not equate ALL protestors to being terrorists
If that is all they do I have no problem...and if that was all that ever happened, there would not be an issue...
But if I was holding up a "Dean Sucks" sign, I would understand if they wanted me to stand "over there"
As I said...a few ruin it for everyone!
The MOB effect is a real concern....go watch a little league game if you don't believe me!
I saw anti-war protestors set up across the street from a group supporting our troops....
To be fair, it was probably not their sole aim to show a lack of support for our troops, but their timing and positioning kind of sucked.
When the majority of the passing motorists started Honking for the troops and Booing the anti-war group ....the anti war group got ugly...
Which didn't improve their standing..
With the liberal media being what it is, protestors should not have to crash someone elses party to make their point.
Often times it seems they resort to that tactic to hide how pitfully few their numbers are....
They are kind of like terrorists in that they resort to disruptive tactics in order to be noticed.
Now....please....let the record show that I did not equate ALL protestors to being terrorists
Balog
Member
Forcing people to stand in a designated place a significant distance from the event under threat of arrest seems a little more than "asking people to behave themselves."
I guess where we differ is that I feel that allowing nobody to dissent under penalty of death/incarceration would be supression.
But telling someone that is/may be disruptive to "stand over there" while still being able/allowed to dissent (as long as he/she behaves) is more about aesthetics.
I guess it really boils down to geography....
Wanta be all negative....hold your own rally!
If nobody shows up...well.......maybe your opinion is not really valued.
I come to that conclusion a lot
But telling someone that is/may be disruptive to "stand over there" while still being able/allowed to dissent (as long as he/she behaves) is more about aesthetics.
I guess it really boils down to geography....
Wanta be all negative....hold your own rally!
If nobody shows up...well.......maybe your opinion is not really valued.
I come to that conclusion a lot
JohnBT
Member
My understanding is that the 1st Amendment gives you the right to get up on your soapbox and speak your mind. It does not require that I, or the government, give you a soapbox. (For the younger crowd, soap used to come in wooden crates and people would stand on them to be better seen and heard.)
In addition, you can't put your soapbox just anywhere you like - not in traffic, not in front of the stage during the 4th of July concert at the city park while everyone is listening to the band, not in a public school, not in a public courtroom, and not in a lot of other places, too.
What's amazing to me is that some people think they have a right to be disruptive.
I remember the '60s(insert joke here) and sort of admired the folks that would protest, take their lumps and not whine about it. Sue maybe, but not complain to anyone and everyone who would listen.
Time's change I guess.
John
In addition, you can't put your soapbox just anywhere you like - not in traffic, not in front of the stage during the 4th of July concert at the city park while everyone is listening to the band, not in a public school, not in a public courtroom, and not in a lot of other places, too.
What's amazing to me is that some people think they have a right to be disruptive.
I remember the '60s(insert joke here) and sort of admired the folks that would protest, take their lumps and not whine about it. Sue maybe, but not complain to anyone and everyone who would listen.
Time's change I guess.
John
seeker_two
Member
"Oppression is in the eye of the beholder"? Oh-kaaaay...
If it were being done by a private citizen on private property, I would be more understanding. But when it's an elected representative of our CONSTITUTIONAL government (remember what they swear to in their oath?), then I have a problem w/ the segregation of opposing points of view.
Safety is one thing. The elimination of opposing points of view for a camera op is something far more sinister...
NorthernExtreme
Member
It doesn't happen all of the time.
oldfart
Member
"It doesn't happen all of the time."
It doesn't have to. Just often enough that the sheeple become used to "the other guy" getting pushed around.
Of course, when their turn comes...
It doesn't have to. Just often enough that the sheeple become used to "the other guy" getting pushed around.
Of course, when their turn comes...
NorthernExtreme
Member
Nor does it happen just because of government abuse. Sometimes it is the result of real problems with the people who suffer for their actions.
Like I said earlier, there is no way of knowing one way or the other on this one.
Why were these people singled out?
How come there are Presidential visits where the protesters are left alone and some where they are asked / ordered to move.
There is no blanket policy in place, and without knowing all the facts we can't know why this happened.
If there is wrong doing than by all means lets give it to them. If we don't know and give it to them anyway; we are the ones who are out of line.
Stop being controlled by your emotional response and get the facts, all of them!
If/when we know it wasn't warranted than you and I can stand together in agreement. But I won't allow my emotions to get the better of me,
Like I said earlier, there is no way of knowing one way or the other on this one.
Why were these people singled out?
How come there are Presidential visits where the protesters are left alone and some where they are asked / ordered to move.
There is no blanket policy in place, and without knowing all the facts we can't know why this happened.
If there is wrong doing than by all means lets give it to them. If we don't know and give it to them anyway; we are the ones who are out of line.
Stop being controlled by your emotional response and get the facts, all of them!
If/when we know it wasn't warranted than you and I can stand together in agreement. But I won't allow my emotions to get the better of me,
Last edited:
w4rma
member
USA PATRIOT Act as Passed by Congress - HR 3162 (Oct. 25, 2001)
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html
Repeal the USA Patriot Act
This is the first in a six-part series of articles on the USA Patriot Act: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.â€
…
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.02A.JVB.Patriot.htm
USA Patriot Act powers prompt second look
Secret court subpoenas, examinations of bookstore records, revised immigration policies and other uses of sweeping new powers have some Senate Democrats taking a new critical look at the USA Patriot Act, enacted in the aftermath of Sept. 11.
…
http://www.hillnews.com/050102/patriot.shtm
… Viet Dinh, the former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. He helped draft the Patriot Act …
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec03/patriot_8-19.html
…
In May 2001, with the appointment of Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh, Attorney General John Ashcroft restored the name of the office as the Office of Legal Policy and confirmed its principal policy role within the Department.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/history.htm
A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'
Unlike its hastily passed predecessor, the Justice Department's wide-ranging follow-up to the Patriot Act of 2001 is already facing intense scrutiny, just days after a civil rights group posted a leaked version of the legislation on its website.
The legislation, nicknamed Patriot II, would broadly expand the government's surveillance and detention powers. Among other measures, it calls for the creation of a terrorist DNA database and allows the attorney general to revoke citizenship of those who provide “material support†to terrorist groups.
Privacy advocates said the bill “gutted the Fourth Amendment,†while prominent Democratic senators, including Patrick Leahy, ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately chastised the administration for its secrecy.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html
Patriot Act II Resurrected?
Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the government's wiretapping and investigative powers but also would link low-level drug dealing to terrorism and ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.
The draft legislation -- titled the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or Victory Act -- includes significant portions of the so-called Patriot Act II, which faced broad opposition from conservatives and liberals alike and embarrassed the Justice Department when it was leaked to the press in February.
The Victory Act also seems to be an attempt to merge the war on terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.
A June 27 draft of the bill, authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by four fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has been circulating in Washington, D.C.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129,00.html
… link to a draft of the Victory Act (89 pages, pdf) …
http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/003693.html
With a Whisper, not a Bang | Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56630
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html
Repeal the USA Patriot Act
This is the first in a six-part series of articles on the USA Patriot Act: “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.â€
…
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/04.02A.JVB.Patriot.htm
USA Patriot Act powers prompt second look
Secret court subpoenas, examinations of bookstore records, revised immigration policies and other uses of sweeping new powers have some Senate Democrats taking a new critical look at the USA Patriot Act, enacted in the aftermath of Sept. 11.
…
http://www.hillnews.com/050102/patriot.shtm
… Viet Dinh, the former assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy at the Justice Department. He helped draft the Patriot Act …
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec03/patriot_8-19.html
…
In May 2001, with the appointment of Assistant Attorney General Viet D. Dinh, Attorney General John Ashcroft restored the name of the office as the Office of Legal Policy and confirmed its principal policy role within the Department.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/history.htm
A Chilly Response to 'Patriot II'
Unlike its hastily passed predecessor, the Justice Department's wide-ranging follow-up to the Patriot Act of 2001 is already facing intense scrutiny, just days after a civil rights group posted a leaked version of the legislation on its website.
The legislation, nicknamed Patriot II, would broadly expand the government's surveillance and detention powers. Among other measures, it calls for the creation of a terrorist DNA database and allows the attorney general to revoke citizenship of those who provide “material support†to terrorist groups.
Privacy advocates said the bill “gutted the Fourth Amendment,†while prominent Democratic senators, including Patrick Leahy, ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, immediately chastised the administration for its secrecy.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57636,00.html
Patriot Act II Resurrected?
Congress may consider a bill that not only expands the government's wiretapping and investigative powers but also would link low-level drug dealing to terrorism and ban a traditional form of Middle Eastern banking.
The draft legislation -- titled the Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003, or Victory Act -- includes significant portions of the so-called Patriot Act II, which faced broad opposition from conservatives and liberals alike and embarrassed the Justice Department when it was leaked to the press in February.
The Victory Act also seems to be an attempt to merge the war on terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.
A June 27 draft of the bill, authored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by four fellow Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, has been circulating in Washington, D.C.
…
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60129,00.html
… link to a draft of the Victory Act (89 pages, pdf) …
http://www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/003693.html
With a Whisper, not a Bang | Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56630
W4RMA- Now you are hiding you "link posts" in others???
The soap box analogy was very good!
The public property thing keeps rearing its ugly head here.
Remember...the White house is public property too...and I can't visit anywhere...any time....
The soap box analogy was very good!
The public property thing keeps rearing its ugly head here.
Remember...the White house is public property too...and I can't visit anywhere...any time....
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Obiwan, parades, public speeches, and even rallies are NOT "someone's party." You make it sound like bush is having drunks thrown out of his wedding reception.
geegee
Member
As I recall, it was worse than that. I believe there was one woman who would repeatedly show up with protest signs when Clinton was jogging, that found herself (coincidentally) called before the IRS for an audit
(she wasn't the only one to experience that, either). That said, I find this article pretty disturbing, especially since it's written by a conservative who supports 2nd Amendment issues. geegee- Status
Similar threads
- Locked