[conservonator]

You act like Bush is the first and only president to have security. Don't be a dim bulb, Presidents have had, do have and will have extraordinary security measures undertaken for their protection.

Quit trying to demonstrate an equivalence where there is none.

[freeeee]

You act like Bush is the first and only president to have security.

I am well aware that Clinton and Bush I had no respect for free speech and assembly as well. In fact I vividly recall the great wailing and screaming when Clinton did the same exact thing to FReepers.

Presidents have had, do have and will have extraordinary security measures undertaken for their protection.

I see you're still clinging to the absurd notion that the removal of protesters had anything to do with safety or security.

So maybe you can answer this question:

There are two people in the crowd watching the presidential motorcade drive by. One is wearing a Bush t-shirt and appluading. The other is wearing a "NO WAR FOR OIL" t-shirt and chanting "no more years". Neither individual has given any indication of malicious intent. They're simply standing there watching and speaking their mind.

As it stands, and not only in the case in this article, the dissenter will be threatened with arrest if he doesn't move to a "free speech zone", the supporter is left be.

Exactly what safety or security threat does the does the dissenter pose that the supporters in the picture below do not? Please be specific.

[inflation]

I would think that the posters saying "and many before him" would include those other presidents, don't you?

These rules that keep people from protesting are a double edged sword, in that when people you agree with are in power and they are used against those you disagree, they are OK. But your side doesn't always have power, and when that happens those laws you loved so much are then used against you and the causes you support.