I submit as exhibit one:
John Hinckley Jr.
I submit as exhibit two:
John Wiles Booth
Posted on 05/19/2004 8:48:55 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
On May 8, at the county's "Gay Day" event in Dayton, Tennessee, police arrested two christians as they were fastening the beams of one of their ten-ffot crosses, which they often use in parades arond the nation in order to draw people to Christ. Without incident, they were arrested and charged with "disorderly conduct" and "interfering with a special event." They were both freed after posting the required $500 bond. Dayton police chief Kenneth Walker admitted to reporters "They wanted to go down to protest and we told them they couldn't" "they were arrested;that's it."
(Excerpt) Read more at reclaimamerica.org ...
However it should be noted that your speech was impeded upon by a private firm that violated its contract with you.
What we have here in this thread's article is worse, as government force was used, which is far more dangerous than a breach of contract. I find that greatly disturbiing. Perhaps the ADF will take up their case as well.
I have been told that Carter started this disgraceful practice. You have about 180 years of very turbulent American history to work with before that.
And I thought this was about the gay event.
May God in His Heaven forgive this pitiful country.......and may He damn these militant gays to hell.
Just picked up 5 boxes of ammo today. :)
Riiiiggggghhhhtttt... The "marriage" of 1-3% of the population will "take over". I have no doubt that this is, as you say just the beginning. I just don't think you're gonna like how it ends...Troll
Ok, I'll give you that one. However, I would put that in the "nanny state" category with seatbelt laws. When one goes somewhere where protesters are likely to be, there is always an inherent risk. If activities with inherent risks are outlawed, few if any human behaviors will remain unregulated. And important rights that made America great such as free speech, free assembly and the right to keep and bear arms will be but a memory.
And I thought this was about the gay event.
There was a very heated thread recently about Bush's security threatening protesters with arrest. I thought it relevent here because I wanted to see if the people who opposed me on the other thread would be consistent, or be hypocrites. It appears we have both.
Freeeee, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's not valid. Sorry to disappoint you. When you have proof that profiling endangers the life of the President, get back to me. Until then, your opinion on what is and what is not appropriate for presidential security is just that: opinion. I'll leave the actual practice of security to th Secret Service.
This one. Sorry, I thought you were referring to it.
I'm tired of seeing brainless morons attacking Bush for everything he does.
Continuing one of Clinton's more disgraceful and unconstitutional practices should draw any conserative's ire.
They just don't understand that the more we are forced underground, the more people come back to church. Our day is coming! +
I submit as exhibit one:
John Hinckley Jr.
I submit as exhibit two:
John Wiles Booth
That's two, but who's counting?
When one goes somewhere where protesters are likely to be, there is always an inherent risk.
Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. If I happen to be walking along the public square and I happen to get caught up in an angry mob, it is my fault for being where "protestors are likely to be"?
Sheesh.
There was a very heated thread recently about Bush's security threatening protesters with arrest.
I know.
These presidential motorcades are highly publicized. And yes, you do assume some risk from protesters by attending one.
I cannot believe you are arguing this. You've really gone off the deep end trying to defend your position.
We do not live in Fallujah.
Oh, do you really think profiling was in use in 1865? And I'm sure you know that the Secret Service didn't start looking after Presidents until 1901, right?
Give it a rest.
It was your assertion that protesters are kept away for the safety of other spectators present. I'm simply agreeing that risk is present, but must be tolertated if we value free speech and assembly.
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.