Skip to comments.
Bush slammed for charging Hu protester
WORLDNETDAILY.COM ^
| April 25, 2006
| unknown
Posted on 04/25/2006 2:14:59 PM PDT by ovrtaxt
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-160 next last
To: jw777
You know exactly what response you're going to get. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
21
posted on
04/25/2006 2:30:36 PM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(My donation to the GOP went here instead: http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/index.php)
To: ovrtaxt
We are no better than the communists if we prosecute this woman for her voice. I don't care what cult she belongs to, it is BS that we deny freedom of speech when it comes to foreign dictators. Congress shall make no law blah blah blah.
22
posted on
04/25/2006 2:31:01 PM PDT
by
satchmodog9
(Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
To: ovrtaxt
I don't know that this lady broke the law but if she did I believe she should be prosecuted like any other lawbreaker
should be. I think it's time to stop picking and choosing who should be prosecuted and who shouldn't. If a law is wrong, change it.
j
23
posted on
04/25/2006 2:31:04 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(-- Married a WAC in '65 and I'm still reenlisting. :-)
To: ovrtaxt
Didn't you know? The First Amendment is suspended when commies are visiting.
24
posted on
04/25/2006 2:31:34 PM PDT
by
TChris
("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
To: jazusamo
You're kidding right?
EVer hear of the FIRST AMENDMENT????
25
posted on
04/25/2006 2:32:05 PM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(My donation to the GOP went here instead: http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/index.php)
To: TChris
You have to 'save face' see. Free speech and save face are diametrically opposed.
26
posted on
04/25/2006 2:33:32 PM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(My donation to the GOP went here instead: http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/index.php)
To: ovrtaxt
There's no way W. will allow Wenyi Wang to be prosecuted or held for any length of time. She said much of what he probably wanted to be said against the illegitimate communist/totalitarian regime currently occupying China.
It's encouraging that she spoke for so long to that audience.
27
posted on
04/25/2006 2:33:36 PM PDT
by
ProCivitas
(Qui bono? Quo warranto? ; Who benefits? By what right/authority ?)
To: ovrtaxt
Thats my point exactly. We let this ugly Mofro Sheehan get away and prosecute this lady. It just aint right.
To: ovrtaxt
If this is true it is damning.
29
posted on
04/25/2006 2:34:32 PM PDT
by
mthom
To: ovrtaxt
It will probably all just fade away, IF it is handled discreetly. The woman was wrong, Commie Hu even more wrong to honor creepy Gates before meeting with the POTUS, but there is no way this woman will see any jail time for a internationally televised faux pas. Who is the only person who wants this to go away more than the protester?
George W. Bush.
p.s. I don't think the woman is wrong in her passion. Those evil Commies are killing people for profit, and that isn't going to stand for long with a Bush White House. The more information that comes out of Communist China, the more they will have to give concessions to the West.
30
posted on
04/25/2006 2:34:57 PM PDT
by
ishabibble
(UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL)
To: ovrtaxt
I agree. I have read an excerpt of the relevant statute and doubt that it applies to mere loud speech directed at a foreign official in public. This is core first amendment.
31
posted on
04/25/2006 2:35:49 PM PDT
by
Elpasser
To: jw777
So do you hold the President responsible for the actions of his staff?
32
posted on
04/25/2006 2:35:56 PM PDT
by
Doe Eyes
To: ovrtaxt
EVer hear of the FIRST AMENDMENT???? wasnt that some rule about 50 yrs ago where people had freedom of speech ?
thats way back, when people actually had guns in thier houses
33
posted on
04/25/2006 2:36:13 PM PDT
by
Revelation 911
(God is love, Love endures forever, Love God, Love your neighbor,)
To: ovrtaxt
This is an emotional argument. She is being charged with breaking laws. Either she broke them or she didn't. That's what a court will decide. I think she personally threatened a head of state and think she should be held accountable for that. Whether it is for a good cause or not is irrevelant.
To: ovrtaxt
Stop trying to indict someone who has nothing to do with it.
35
posted on
04/25/2006 2:36:24 PM PDT
by
jw777
To: ovrtaxt
Why is this protester being arrested and yet Mary O McCarthy is still free.
Who did the greater harm?
36
posted on
04/25/2006 2:36:47 PM PDT
by
Prost1
(Sandy Berger can steal, Clinton can cheat, but Bush can't listen!)
To: Doe Eyes
Tell me which staff member is charging her!
37
posted on
04/25/2006 2:37:12 PM PDT
by
jw777
To: ishabibble
It will probably all just fade away, IF it is handled discreetly.
Why should it have to be handled discreetly? That is diametrically counter to the foundation of this Nation.
38
posted on
04/25/2006 2:37:33 PM PDT
by
TomGuy
To: jw777
weak. you're embarrassing yourself.
39
posted on
04/25/2006 2:38:08 PM PDT
by
ovrtaxt
(My donation to the GOP went here instead: http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/index.php)
To: ovrtaxt
You're kidding right? Nope, not kidding. If she broke a law, which I don't know if she did, she should be prosecuted. If we have a law that is contrary to the First Amendment, it's unconstitutional and should be thrown out.
j
40
posted on
04/25/2006 2:38:21 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(-- Married a WAC in '65 and I'm still reenlisting. :-)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-160 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson