Skip to comments.DEVELOPING: SECRET SERVICE CONCERN AFTER LOS ANGELES TIMES COMIC DEPICTS 'BUSH ASSASSINATION'
Posted on 07/20/2003 5:02:20 PM PDT by ConservativeMan55
DEVELOPING: SECRET SERVICE CONCERN AFTER LOS ANGELES TIMES COMIC DEPICTS 'BUSH ASSASSINATION'
Ditto that. Ramirez's been noted in the past because he's a CONSERVATIVE hispanic editorial cartoonist.
I spoke to him once by phone, and he said that it can be "a grind" coming up with good material several times a week.
In fairness to him, I think what he may have intended to be a statement sympathetic to Bush (Bush being summarily and unfairly killed by politics) got lost in the translation.
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...."
From: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
1. To reduce the length of (a written text); condense. 2. To cut short; curtail. See synonyms at shorten.
If the no law can be made that will condense, cut short, curtail, or shorten freedom of speech, what speech is not protected? How can any speech be forbidden without cutting short, curtailing, or shortening freedom of speech?
Why are you afraid of freedom of speech?
You have got to be the most disingenuous posters on this forum.
I made a plain statement, I said that it was not only the Democrats trying to do that, that there was some of that going on here. If you don't think that's a true statement, you are nuts.
In post 565, in a response to TheDon's comment: "If the cartoonist had ANY balls, he would have replaced Politics with Demorats.", you stated: "Except, Democrats are not the only ones tryiong to kill Bush politically. Look around in this forum." 565 posted on 07/20/2003 8:18 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
702 posted on 07/20/2003 11:44 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
I objected to that mischaracterization and I still do. I don't know of anyone on this forum who is trying to kill Bush politically. I do know a lot of them who disagree with his vision of what it is to be a conservative politician. And the discussion of those views seems reasonable to me, not at all the stuff that you and others make it out to be. What they would like to see is Bush take actions that can be characterized as conservative, on issues that matter to conservatives. That isn't trying to destroy the man and you know it.
I stated to you...
This should be real easy to prove then Luis. Please point me to places on the forum where people are taking the president to task for lying about WMDs. Please point me to places on the forum where people are backing the several poiticians who have called for Bush's impeachement. Please point me to just a few places where people on this forum have been backing Ted Kennedy's, Tom Daschel's, Hillary Clinton's and other leftist's comments about Bush.
Thanks in advance.
707 posted on 07/20/2003 11:57 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
This was your response.
Why do I not just point you to all the LewRockwell.com articles posted here, all the crap posted by Justin Raimondo, all of RLK's dribble, all of Tancredo fanatics crap, the "hold his feet to the fire" moron squad, sheltonmac...
You have got to be the most disingenuous posters on this forum.
766 posted on 07/21/2003 12:26 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Cuba será libre...soon.)
Luis, I'm going to do something rather unique for you. Once again, I'm going to respond to your comments rather than go off topic or change the premise to make whatever comments I want.
I mentioned those calling Bush a liar with regard to WMDs. I mentioned those calling for Bush's impeachment. I mentioned Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschel, Hillary Clinton and other leftists. I asked you to provide evidence of support for their comments and goals here. You response included a number of people and groups, none of which are trying to take Bush down like the Democrats, which was your original premise. If you get a chance, you might actually try addressing the words I type for you instead of ignoring them and trying to dodge your main premise I'm trying to address.
I don't read many LewRockwell.com articles. If they were completely over the top I believe Jim would ban them like he has Justin Raimondo's (at least that's the last disposition I remember regarding Justin's comments). I've not been a particularly big fan of Justin's. I don't remember a body of work by RLK that supports a judgement on my part. As for holding Bush's feet to the fire, I don't think that's an unreasonable premise for any of our elected officials. Obviously you do. I'm not sure which moron squad you're referencing, but it seems to me there are adequate representations of morons on a number of topics and sides of issues on this forum. Those are not exclusive to the folks who take Bush to task, so you'll have to be a little more specific there. As for SheltonMac, once again I can't remember having read enough of his works to make a judgement. All of this is rather academic, since I didn't ask you to link those who criticize Bush for not being "conservative" enough. I asked you to provide links to comments of a nature that I specificly listed for you, namely trying to kill Bush politically just like the Democrats. That was your inference. Would you like to support your claim or not?
Do you want to know why I'm riding you on this Luis. It was your inclusion and terminology used to describe "all of Tancredo fanatics crap". It didn't come up until later on this thread, but I've discussed the issue enough with you to know exactly where you come down on it. And your underlying disrespect for other citizens who recognize the issue for what it is, leads me to question your grasp of any issue.
Luis, the United States Constitution Article IV, Section IV states that the president will protect the states from invasion. Leaving all other issues on this topic aside, which are critically important to the well being of this nation on a number of sub-issues and levels, you still refuse to recognize that tens of millions of people pouring across our borders is an invasion. You see it as the invading hordes inalienable right to do so. I do not.
If you think the raising of this issue is simply a way to boot Bush out of office, you are refusing to understand the elemental concept of pleading your case with other conservatives and hoping enough of them contact the president and urge him to change his policy, that his policies will be affected. Isn't that how our system is supposed to work? How can you characterize the attempt to change Bush's policies on this and other issues as simply trying to kill him politically? Yet that is exactly the case you made.
Agreed, mostly. But, you have to look at a cartoon, book, movie etc, and ask the question of what, if anything, is it advocating. Is the situation in this cartoon advocating the killing of the president? I don't think so- it's taking a historical picture and turning it into a symbolic point about political attempts to ruin the president. It's all a question of context- if the cartoon simply had a picture of a guy holding a gun up to the president's head, then I would agree that it crossed the line to advocacy. However, the word "Politics" on the executioner's back and the other elements of the picture make it clear the the cartoonist is trying to do something other than advocate the murder of the president.
Political cartoons are supposed to stir the pot, and this one seems to have done its job.
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.