Posted on 05/14/2004 8:20:31 AM PDT by freeeee
We had a presidential motorcade go by work after the mountain fires were delt with. All the hippy morons at my company went out with signs, nobody got told to move, nobody got arrested, and some of their signs actually were obscene. Sorry Freeeee but there isn't some universal thing, they aren't clearing out all protesters from all motorcade paths, I know the liberal journalists want you to think that, but they're lying to you.
354 posts to explain something that should be apparent to all! Amazing. I never thought conservatives could ever be as hypocritical as liberals or put partisanship above common sense and principle. You have the patience of Job Freeeee.
If they turn themselves into a public nuissance then all the laws that allow people to get arrested for being a public nuissance apply
The policy in effect holds that dissent in itself is a public nuissance. That doesn't fly in a free country and is completely contrary to the 1st Amendment.
Why won't you hold "your guy" to higher standards than the Clintons? I'd be ashamed if my candidate did the same. I'd be writing a letter politely asking him to honor free speech, not arguing with people that are trying to keep this country free.
Please see post #360.
I don't know if you remember any of our long past exchanges, but I'll say you've come a long way Burkeman1.
Stood up in court case after court case after court case, and in compliance with painfully obvious interpretation of short simple sentences, and the explanations to those short simple sentences in the Federalist papers DOES equal Constitutional.
That does indeed fly in a free county and is perfectly OK to the 1st Ammendment. By your interpretation if they wanted to shut the street down it would be OK because they're protesting. You're turning carrying a protest sign into an all purpose defense against other laws. Doesn't work that way, a person creating a public nuissance is doing so whether or not they're protesting something.
I'm holding Bush to the exact same standard I held Clinton. I'm disappointed he's clearing the path of protestors, but my disappointment doesn't make it unconstitutional. You don't know I haven't written a letter, but the person I'm arguing with isn't someone trying to keep this country free, it's a person creating a fictitious and silly interpretation of the Bill of Rights that I find dangerous in its shortsightedness and myopic worship of protest signs.
save your breath and typing fingers with some of the crowd here. they are similar to the king, no protests allowed. but don't worry they will one day again raise their voices up loud and clear across this land and cry out for free speech and our constitutional rights,.... but you'll have to wait for someone who is in office they don't worship.
go figure
that's...
find it intolerable as much as you want, I'll support you in that 100%. But the minute you say it's unconstitutional I'm going to point out that your interpetation of the consitution is substantively incorrect.
The street is already shut down by the motorcade. And it is not closed to onlookers. The only distinction of who is allowed to stay is the content of political speech. And no legitimate safety concern had been sited against protesters.
I think that's unconstitutional, you do not. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Location, location, location. Free speech was not inhibited nor was the right to dissent prohibited. Those people were free to protest to their heart's content, anywhere they could draw a crowd or a camera. But, the only location suitable to them had already been reserved for other purposes that day. Such is life.
We had very similar whiners here in Seattle when the President visited. He was very entertaining.
With regards banning signs along a road during a political candidate’s drive by – who cares. People can put signs in their front yard, go stand on the street to get on the air on Good Morning America, buy an end-zone seat & wear a t-shirt during a televised football game – whatever.
This author could have written a piece that chronicled when the practice started (Carter?). Make a case as to why he thinks it is improper, why he feels it’s a big deal. He could have requested quotes from those who support & oppose the policy. Instead he chose to write a slanted hit piece designed to make Bush look bad. Why can’t the press (and their editors) just write an unbiased piece against the policy if the don’t like it. Why a hit piece on the President.
For the record, my first impressions is that, I don’t like the practice. But like I said – who cares? There are plenty of opportunities to protest or show your disagreement in this country. I disagree with your impressions of our country – I believe we still live in a free country. But I’d be willing to read an article that laid out both sides of the issue with reason for and against the policy. Then I could make up my own mind. That’s what I look for in a news source, not a biased piece just trying to say Bush does this because he thinks he is a king. That is pathetic journalism, no matter which party the target belongs to.
Now, since I believe I still live in a free country, I’m off to celebrate my freedom by going to the world’s largest outdoor Pork Bar B Que cooking contest with 90,000 kindred spirits. Did I say, world’s largest? Nay the Galaxy’s largest Bar B Que fest in Downtown Memphis, Tennessee. Which by the way is the home State of Al Gore, which he DID NOT carry in 2000. I plan to celebrate my “freedom to choose” between several brands of frosty adult beverages while I freely consume large wasteful amounts of Duck (in gumbo) killed without mercy whilst in flight, followed by several Bar B Que’d furry little creatures of the wood such as deer and turkey killed with a bow and arrow. All the while listing to all types of music, both country and western. I may even get around to the pork ribs, but I doubt it. Now that’s freedom to choose. I hope you all have a wonderful weekend.
The president does not get to reserve an area for the public solely for his supporters simply on the virtue of his presence.
He can allow well behaved members of the public, or he can claim no one can be allowed because of security concerns.
The pres has plenty of private venues to reserve for his own supporters... the White House, any rented convention center, the possibilities are almost limitless.
But when he ventures out into the public and legitimate security concerns do not disallow onlookers, he is going to be subject to free speech. Why you might ask? Because he is the president of a free country, not the strongman of some pathetic banana republic.
The existance of other venues is irrelevent. The government has disallowed speech based solely on politcal content while allowing others it prefers and that is intolerable.
Instead he chose to write a slanted hit piece designed to make Bush look bad.
Agreed. I too prefer a more impartial piece. All I could find is this editorial.
I have a soft spot for BBQ, I truly wish I was joining you. Have fun!
Have a good weekend!
Isn't is amazing ? I think it is the transparency that offends me most. They aren't whining about anything noble such as free speech or the right to dissent. Thats merely a convenient ruse. If the situation were reversed, they'd shout down or elbow out an opposing opinion without so much as a second thought. Its purely personal.
There is only one enemy that can defeat our troops in Iraq...the liberal left and their willing stooges. The next big fight in the war on terror is on November...we can't let them win.
This thread is about penis envy, of the highest order. I include you.
Is that right ? Do you mean to say the Leader of the Free World isn't entitled to the same rights as a Hollywood film crew ? Just try nosing into one of their carefully selected location shoots with your protest signs and see how long you last.
And, what about a president's rights ? For instance the right of free association or a right to reasonable expectation of safety. But, of course, you understand all that.
I'm not interested in your hypothetical strawman. I'm interested in the fact that you're eating a hearty bowl of John Nichols' Protestor Stone Soup. As I posted earlier, this whole article is a crock of hogwash, whipped up by Nichols out of the arrest of one jerk.
If you can't deal with that fact, then you are a Lumbricus.
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.