I was thinking about this guy:
King George Pataki, (RINO-NY)
Posted on 05/14/2004 8:20:31 AM PDT by freeeee
As you very well know, the point I was making is that I actually DO THINGS to back up what I say.
This poster in gneral only shows up to pot-stir and I frankly don't have a lot of respect for him.
All talk. No substance.
If Clinton v Gore are my only two choices, I'd vote for Gore because I consider him a cypher and less capable of doing damage.
I don't think that''s going to happen and neither do you!
ROTFLMAO,,, thanks! I needed a laugh.
I am sticking to the article, the article doesn't present enough facts to know if the person should have been arrested.
Yes you do have a right to hold up rude signs. What you don't have is the right to hold them up at the time and place of your chosing forcing the audience of your choice to read them.
You reserve the right to hold up all the rude signs your little hands can hold, and I reserve the right to tell you to get the hell out of my way, and I see no problem with George Bush or even Bill Clinton telling you to get the hell out of their way. Freedom of speech does NOT include time, place, and audience, it never has and it never will and anybody that thinks it does needs to take a remedial reading lesson.
You don't know that.
You should stick to the concepts and leave your personal feeling about the poster out of it. I often have the same problem so I understand it's difficult.
I do know that once or twice in history, troops were actually called out to clear protesters or strikers, but I cannot remember who the Presidents were at the time... If I can find it, I will ping you, just for the fun of it.
Protagoras wrote:
You don't know that.
You should stick to the concepts and leave your personal feeling about the poster out of it. I often have the same problem so I understand it's difficult.
I think there are multiple points which could be discussed regarding this issue :). My post was only meant to address one of them, the partisan issue, as opposed to the free speech type issue.
It appears you need a remedial First Amendment lesson.
Your above assertion is entirely wrong. In fact, it's in direct contrast to decades of well-established constitutional law.
Examples, please.
And if you want to see people get personal very quickly for disagreeing, witness the responses to me on this thread.
Precisely, so you can only go by the article, not "facts" you imagine.
I am sticking to the article,
Umm, your comment belies that.
Freedom of speech does NOT include time, place, and audience, it never has and it never will and anybody that thinks it does needs to take a remedial reading lesson.
Please refrain from veiled personal attacks.
You reserve the right to hold up all the rude signs your little hands can hold, and I reserve the right to tell you to get the hell out of my way, and I see no problem with George Bush or even Bill Clinton telling you to get the hell out of their way.
They can tell me whatever they want, until they do something about it, they are within their rights.
Yes you do have a right to hold up rude signs. What you don't have is the right to hold them up at the time and place of your chosing forcing the audience of your choice to read them.
Nonsense. A public place where people are allowed to greet politicians it is allowed in a free society to express whatever they want, adoration or derision. No one is being forced to read any sign.
Your suggestion would allow idolaters to show up when politicians are present and restrict protesters to places and times of day when they are not present. That is a bizarre concept of free expression of political speech in America.
I was thinking about this guy:
King George Pataki, (RINO-NY)
Nope. I am NOT going to dig through every post you've made since you joined.
If people are curious enough, they can look and decide for themselves.
As regards personal, I consider that you brought much of it on yourself and shot many of the first vollys.
Calm down for a moment and read the article.
None of those groups showed up. Some American citizens tried to protest in public. They were arrested or removed (this has been going on for years now) for daring express contempt in front of the pres, while supporters were left in place. The discerning criteria was not security risk. Rather, dissenters were treated differently than supporters based solely upon their political views.
I think this is appropriate here to make my point:
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else." - President Teddy Roosevelt, Kansas City Star, May 7, 1918
I would be interested in knowing when that happened. Not rioters, mind you, or people who were committing crimes or denying others of their rights, but protesters.
Courts have made decisions that accomodate protesters and supporters and most of them make sense, but not all.
I think we are missing one important point here... Obviously you have never had a sitting president visit your community. Security for Clinton (or his wife)would have been have been just as tight. Maybe you are just upset because Clinton did not think your section of the country was important enough to visit, and Bush did.
I've been fortunate enough to see four presidents - Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush. Security is always tight, but we put up with it because the safety of OUR President is so important.
Well, you DID strike a chord with the Teddy quote. It's a good one and I thank you for it!
Look. I don't think we are going to agree on this. I am still thinking that it was more of a security issue than a political preferences issue. You do not, and that is your right.
I do nt think Mr. Bush is calling all of the shots as to who he sees. He's a war-time president and things HAVE changed.
I submit that we agree to disagree.
No my above asserting is 100% ACCURATE, in fact it's entirely in line with CENTURIES (we've been around over 200 years you know) of well established Constituional law.
A little selective memory going on here, methinks.
This happened before 9-11.
I submit that we agree to disagree.
Agreed. Truce?
Maybe you can explain to me why supporters are not seen as a security risk, while dissenters are.
I would remind you that John Hinkley was posing as a supporter when he shot Reagan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.