Posted on 05/14/2004 8:20:31 AM PDT by freeeee
Some folks just like getting mad about stuff, and that's OK. I can see being disappointed in W for this, I can see protesting against it, writing about how wrong it is, and even voting against him because of it. Those are all worthy and justifiable reactions (I'm a little disappointed, but that's as far as I'm going). What annoys me is when people feel a need to legitimize their anger with crappy interpretations of the Constitution. Just because something shouldn't have happened (which this probably shouldn't have) doesn't make it a violation of the Constitution.
Umm, Einstein, the president is clearly shown to be in a bus (the large, rectangular-shaped object with wheels), which one (with a brain, that is) can only assume has been fitted with bullet-proof plating and windows. So, until your side shows a penchant for the use of rocket propelled grenades (like your ideological allies in the Sunni Triangle), the president is in little danger from crowds along his bus route.
No, the author takes one isolated example and uses it to create a generalization. The sign that was being held up can easily be said to be offensive or obscene (and surely not within the civilized mores of Wisconsin). Another sign with a legitimate message such as "Repeal the PATRIOT Act" would not have drawn such a response. That is the difference that lefties cannot see, because so many of them are vile, disgusting people with very coarse ways and means.
You're exactly right, and furthermore, I'm maintaining (post #264) that John Nichols whipped up a batch of Stone Soup from the arrest of one guy, and freeeee and his buds are sucking it down like it's their first meal in a week.
Just because I'm a tad overweight is no reason to call me names. LOL
Look, the whole point is about the right to express yourself about anyone in a free society. It doesn't depend on who's ox id being gored. (no pun intended)
I promise you that many a politician would and has tried to stifle protests of themselves. It has no place in a free society, no matter who it is.
I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO HOLD UP RUDE SIGNS ABOUT HILLARY. And anyone else I choose. It is the difference between us and un-free societies. And I'm not optimistic that it will last long at the current rate of decline in respect for that tradition.
We probably don't disagree on that.
Is Nichols really this stupid? Gee, sound travels, so when one organization rents out a portion of the park, it doesn't want to be drowned out by a bunch of baby-killing treasonous morons (i.e. the average Bush-hater). If Nichols looked into the park's rules, he may find that the same courtesy is extended to other groups that lease the space. I used to work at a state park, and there were very restrictive rules regarding sound equipment, signs, the size and nature of gatherings, alcohol, etc. Its all for the safe and happy enjoyment of all citizens.
Thank you for spelling out the fallacy in such detail. I tried doing it in one sentence, but I'm not sure freeeee is functioning well-enough to understand it.
Well, given the bloodthirsty, vile, despicable, and traitorous nature of the Bush-haters, as evidenced by the public activities of their political leaders (Kennedy, Kerry, etc.), cultural leaders, and average citizens, how else can I describe them. There should be no room in any self-respecting political party's tent for these kinds of people, but it seems as though that is all the Left has these days.
SS kicks out people solely for protesting and you know it. If they refuse to leave they are arrested.
Why won't you address that?
Take a good look at the photo that came with the article. See those things standing at the side of the road? Those are people. Do you know why they're allowed to stand there while protesters are not? Because the president likes them.
That is not free speech or assembly.
Examples, please...
Say that reminds me, how is the president's case in SCOTUS going where he wants the power to unillaterally detain Americans without due process indefinitely?
Failure to comply with highly trained armed men is its own special brand of stupidity. Got any proof that simply telling the SS you're not leaving will get you arrested?
When in doubt throw in red herrings. You're so predictable.
"In Platteville, peace activist Frank Van Den Bosch was arrested for holding up a sign that was critical of the president. The sign's "dangerous" message, "FUGW," was incomprehensible to children and, no doubt, to many adults. Yet, it was still determined sufficiently unsettling to the royal procession that Van Den Bosch was slapped with a disorderly conduct ticket."
"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."
That's just from this article. But this is not a new policy.
"My side" is the side of free speech.
Now why don't you explain to me why someone posing as a supporter couldn't do that. Please be specific.
I see. They're "highly trained". That means that they must be right, and the 1st Amendment doesn't protect free speech or assembly. Since they're "highly trained" and given orders from the top dog, supporters should only be allowed and dissenters driven away. Got it.
Got any proof that simply telling the SS you're not leaving will get you arrested?
The testimony of protesters.
1) You neglect what I wrote about the president being in a bus (you know, the rectangular thing on wheels) and therefore being safe from the crowds;
2) You have ignored the fact that the author of this hit-piece uses one isolated event (the removal of a protestor with an obscene sign) to make a generalization about the president trampling on citizens' rights;
3) The First Amendment is not absolute. Tried yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater recently? Tried sacrificing a virgin to appease the Sun God recently? Made any obscene or threatening comments to the president recently? I've got news for you, Einstein: Those and other activities aren't covered!
Try reading (and thinking about) the bilge that you post before putting it up for discussion on Free Republic.
No, the "highly trained" means they're less likely to miss. It's a survival skill, superior fire power has the right of way whether the wielder is right or wrong. Being right and dead is still dead. I apply the same governing principle when deciding if I'm gonna do what an outlaw biker says too.
The testimony of the protesters where? In court under oath? Or in silly articles like this?
Given the dishonesty of the author and those of his ilk, I would prefer to see a listing from a reputable source of believable citizens who were told such things. I'm not going to take Nichols' word for it. This is a baseless attack, much like the horror stories told about the USA PATRIOT Act. Not one legitimate complaint has been brought forth to the Justice Department showing abuse of rights due to the act.
Now, do us all a favor and write Karl Rove or Halliburton or whoever this week's bogeyman is, and get a copy of the Bush directive to quash free speech rights. Then get back to us here at FR. Until then, you're running a pointless and baseless attack.
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.