Madison Newspapers logo....
Posted on 05/14/2004 8:20:31 AM PDT by freeeee
I seem to recall something about Clinton getting a haircut on the runway at LAX, screwing up air traffic in a vast section of the nation.
Wrong. Read through them & you'll be surprised.
That is, if you're still clinging to your original notion re: the right to be heard and the removal of protestors.
Madison Newspapers logo....
That's just me Pro and freeee.
I don't have the penchannt for drama as you two big "L" Libertatians seem to have.
Also, I have to admit that you two do give Chappaquidick Fats, Ted Kennedy, and the ACLU a run in the drama dept. with your rhetoric on FR, IMO.
Ya see? This is inane. Shrill. And Obtuse.
I have never claimed anything that you imply. The article stands on it's own merit. You can believe it or not. I have no information that shows it to be incorrect, therefore I only have commented on the info available. If you want me to prove a negative, on something I never asserted, you will be waiting a long time. That line of argument is inane.
If their claim was that people standing on the side of the road was too dangerous, and kept everyone including supporters away, you might have a point.
But they are not. They are letting some people, those they happen to like, stand in a certain place at a certain time and wave signs at the person of their choosing.
And they are denying the same on one criteria and only one criteria: they don't like what these others have to say.
This is behavior worthy of some pathetic free ridden banana republic. And you call this free speech. Simply amazing.
And be sure to "put down the bong pipe". LOL
See ya around.
And to the others... I have to say the juvenile personal attacks lower the level of discourse of this forum.
No, the article stands on the arrest of a single jerk, as I pointed out in my post #264.
Many of the dubious claims in the article do not logically follow from the arrest of one jerk, unless you accept the Liberal Logic of John Nichols, apparent Socialist apparatchik.
No, that would be John Kerry who uses goons to disrupt those who oppose him. There is no evidence in this baseless and mindless article, nor from anything else that I've read, to support your contention. There is a certain amount of area where no one is allowed, pro- or anti-Bush.
But, something your side must deal with in some manner, is the vile and often illegal threats you make on your little signs and your stupid little chants. It is illegal to advocate the killing of a president or any other federal official. But, given John Kerry's involvement in such discussions, and his failure to inform federal authorities of a credible threat against six sitting senators that members of his organization (VVAW) made in November 1971, you all don't care about the law as long as its your side making the threats.
Maybe if your side weren't such bloodthirsty, vile, descipable, and treasonous vermin, then maybe you could be trusted to be in the presence of a president. But until you reach such a level of civility you'll have to be kept at a safe distance.
Right. For 120 miles.
John Nichols got to use the arrest of one jerk to crank out a lengthy essay fantasizing about the brutal suppression of free speech by the Bush White House in Wisconsin, and freeeee and his buds took the bait hook, line and sinker.
What a joke.
It's too damned bad if you don't like what protesters have to say. If they aren't breaking the law, they have every much right to be there as the supporters.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." - Voltaire
No, the article stands on the arrest of a single jerk,
Hmmmm,,,so it's either correct or incorrect. Isn't that it's own merit? Or lack thereof? Nevermind, this thread has gone futher south than the pole.
What a crock!
No it's not inane shrill or obtuse. I said no one's first ammendment right's were violated, you responded by posting the quote about Frank getting arrested WHILE holding a protest sign. I pointed out that people holding protest signs can be arrested for perfectly legitimate reasons that having nothing to do with their protest sign. If you've got proof that Frank was arrested FOR holding a protest then I'll join you in outrage, but I'm not going to assume that a person arrested WHILE holding a sign was arrested BECAUSE of the sign. The inane shrill and obtuse argument here is the assumption that no one holding a protest sign has ever been arrested for legitimated reasons that have nothing to do with the First Ammendment.
If you think Frank's arrest was a violation of the First Ammendment then PROVE IT. Find the police report that give the officer's description of the event, maybe even Frank's description, possibly a court case involving the arrest. All we've got is a one line throw away from a journalist with an axe to grind, he presents no proof at all that Frank wasn't doing anything else that could have got him arrested. He just says Frank got arrested and he was holding this sign, just because A preceeds B doesn't mean A caused B.
Now, there's a 'big-tent' pubby for you! LOL!
Your Reply No. 263 is entirely meaningless and irrelevent to the discussion. But, given the nature of the article you chose to post and your lack of critical analysis shown in accepting the author's baseless rant, this is not surprising. People in general are not allowed within a certain distance of the president, except for special exceptions in a controlled environment.
And again, given the vile and threatening language used, the wanton violence perpetrated, and general lack of constructive discourse that is the hallmark of the crazed, intellectually-challenged Bush-haters, I don't think any of them should be allowed with mile of any living American.
My, you're easily led.
Look, it's the Goodrich Blimp, Protogoras!
Who cares what their claim is, again: time, place and audience are NOT garaunteed in the First Ammendment and the Secret Service is NOT Congress and they were NOT passing laws.
No you see in a banana republic the protesters would disappear never to be seen again until the next government finds the mass graves. Here in America they just get moved to somewhere less annoying, actually I call it freedom of association, the President doesn't have to associate with people waving signs, niether does anybody else. These people are perfectly free to go someplace else, hold an exciting rally, wave their signs, make speeches and even get some press coverage; they still get freedom of speech.
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.