Posted on 05/14/2004 8:20:31 AM PDT by freeeee
Sorry charley, personal attack are all you've had for a while. It's OK, I understand why a person resorts to personal attack, I know that it's just because you've realized you're wrong but aren't up to admitting it publicly. Some people hve problems with that and I don't hold that against you and it doesn't lessen my opinion of you in any way.
Hinckley was posing as a supporter.
So much for that theory.
This article is one of the Left's favorite little tricks, wherein the "jernalist" searches out a singularity, and uses the singularity to "prove" a pet theory.
Thusly:
The singularity: "In Platteville, peace activist Frank Van Den Bosch was arrested for holding up a sign that was critical of the president."
The extension of the singularity to "proof": "Along the route of the Bush bus trip from Dubuque to La Crosse, the Bush team created a "no-free-speech" zone that excluded any expressions of the dissent that is the lifeblood of democracy." A "no-free-speech zone" 120 miles long? Give me a break! Well, I guess it must be true, because Frank Van Den Bosch got arrested.
"Up the road in La Crosse, the clampdown on civil liberties was even more sweeping. Wolf and hundreds of other Wisconsinites and Minnesotans who sought to express dissents were videotaped by authorities, told they could not make noise, ordered not to display certain signs and forced to stand out of eyesight of Bush and his entourage. Again and again, they were told that if they expressed themselves in ways that were entirely protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, they would be "subject to arrest."" Right. I'm supposed to believe a partisan like Wolf on his say-so, and especially because Frank Van Den Bosch got arrested. A "more sweeping" clampdown that produced less arrests.
"The Bush visit attacked First Amendment rights up and down the Mississippi." I guess this must correct, because Frank Van Den Bosch got arrested.
"La Crosse Mayor John Medinger shares that concern. The Bush-Cheney campaign leased a portion of a local park where the royal rally was held. Yet, Wisconsinites who wanted to protest Bush's visit were told they could not use a sound system in a completely different section of the park." We're being instructed on the finer points of an unnamed city park by a guy who already has asserted that the Bush team created a "no-free-speech" zone 120 miles long. Riiggghhht. Well, I suppose it's true, because Frank Van Den Bosch got arrested.
"The Bush-Cheney campaign paid a $100 fee to use one part of the park, but disrupted much of the city." The author has now completed the extension from singularity to general theory, and now feels free to make disguised editorial comments, completely without backing.
Josef Stalin would have been proud of this apparatchik.
Actually they're all alike. They're all people that don't know anything about the Constitution incorrectly thinking somebody violated it when they inconvenienced them.
Oh, and just so you know, the Secret Service isn't Congress.
Of course it was OK - Clinton liked sex!
Please reference the posts where the writer has been praised.
I see. The Clintons did it, so it must be ok.
How odd.
Just my opinion, I consider you, Protagoras, as out of the mainstream, and the leading Libertarian party(pro-drug) advocate on FR.
Please reference any personal attacks.
Exactly. The phony "outrage" by the Lefties over the president's allegedly not visiting hospitalized soldiers (which is a lie; he simply chooses not to have the media intrude, unlike his psychopath predecessor would have) or not attending funerals (which is true, since he doesn't want to intrude upon the families' privacy during their time of mourning) is further evidence of his consideration and decency. Last week he and his wife's decision to not attend their daughters' college graduation ceremonies was announced. Again, they didn't want to intrude (with the necessary security and the gaggles of media).
Freeee, you and John Nichols chose the wrong president to criticize in this department.
inane
obtuse
shrill
Those aren't polite words.
Got the police report yet?
The first three were boycotts.
The last involved government force.
Couldn't be more obvious.
Uh freeeee, posting this leftist drivel in the first place.
Dude, JMO, lay down the bong or pill bottle.
"Your concern for free speech is touching."
What the hell are you talking about! Free speech is alive and well (exceptions: campus speech codes, pc-correct terms, a few others) but you expect that the President should be obligated to engage with fanatics that would only yell and scream emotionally-charged and intellectually-bankrupt questions and slogans. Every President recieves death threats but Clinton's were not published in GOP literature or as part of a comedy show (Daily Show: "Sniper's Wanted") or like that heard almost daily on the soon-to-be-defunct Liberal Radio Network.
I'm sure you also believe that equal opportunity demands equal results.
Geez - What a maroon!!!
And all four are people that have no understanding of the First Ammement.
Couldn't be more obvious.
I have never used any illegal drug. Have you?
Just my opinion, I consider you, Protagoras, as out of the mainstream, and the leading Libertarian party(pro-drug) advocate on FR.
Your conciderations are incorrect.
I'm am neither a Libertarian nor do I advocate for them, nor am I pro drug.
Your opinion is goofy, as usual.
The people in the picture are not protestors or they wouldn't be in the picture. They are supporters who were met at the entrance with their tickets in hand and throroughly checked out before proceeding further. The "signs" were no doubt handed out by the campaign itself so are perfectly appropriate for a rally like this.
Does or does not this president use his security force to remove protesters from public appearances under threat of arrest while leaving supporters in place?
A simple yes or no will do.
You may also be interested in:
* SEIU v. City of Los Angeles - 114 F.Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. 2000)
* Boos v. Barry
* Edwards v. South Carolina - 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
* Gregory v. Chicago (1969)
* Bay Area Peace Navy v. U.S. - 9th Circuit (1990)
* Collins v. Jordan - 9th Circuit (1990)
Among others.
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.