Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 67

Thread: Bush "protected" from Free Speech

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b][b]Quarantining dissent
    How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech[/b]
    James Bovard
    Sunday, January 4, 2004

    When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

    When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

    The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

    The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

    Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

    At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area.

    Paul Wolf, one of the top officials in the Allegheny County Police Department, told Salon that the Secret Service "come in and do a site survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters put in a place that is able to be secured.' "

    Pennsylvania District Judge Shirley Rowe Trkula threw out the disorderly conduct charge against Neel, declaring, "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"

    Similar suppressions have occurred during Bush visits to Florida. A recent St. Petersburg Times editorial noted, "At a Bush rally at Legends Field in 2001, three demonstrators -- two of whom were grandmothers -- were arrested for holding up small handwritten protest signs outside the designated zone. And last year, seven protesters were arrested when Bush came to a rally at the USF Sun Dome. They had refused to be cordoned off into a protest zone hundreds of yards from the entrance to the Dome."

    One of the arrested protesters was a 62-year-old man holding up a sign, "War is good business. Invest your sons." The seven were charged with trespassing, "obstructing without violence and disorderly conduct."

    Police have repressed protesters during several Bush visits to the St. Louis area as well. When Bush visited on Jan. 22, 150 people carrying signs were shunted far away from the main action and effectively quarantined.

    Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."

    When Bush stopped by a Boeing plant to talk to workers, Christine Mains and her 5-year-old daughter disobeyed orders to move to a small protest area far from the action. Police arrested Mains and took her and her crying daughter away in separate squad cars.

    The Justice Department is now prosecuting Brett Bursey, who was arrested for holding a "No War for Oil" sign at a Bush visit to Columbia, S.C. Local police, acting under Secret Service orders, established a "free-speech zone" half a mile from where Bush would speak. Bursey was standing amid hundreds of people carrying signs praising the president. Police told Bursey to remove himself to the "free-speech zone."

    Bursey refused and was arrested. Bursey said that he asked the police officer if "it was the content of my sign, and he said, 'Yes, sir, it's the content of your sign that's the problem.' " Bursey stated that he had already moved 200 yards from where Bush was supposed to speak. Bursey later complained, "The problem was, the restricted area kept moving. It was wherever I happened to be standing."

    Bursey was charged with trespassing. Five months later, the charge was dropped because South Carolina law prohibits arresting people for trespassing on public property. But the Justice Department -- in the person of U.S. Attorney Strom Thurmond Jr. -- quickly jumped in, charging Bursey with violating a rarely enforced federal law regarding "entering a restricted area around the president of the United States."

    If convicted, Bursey faces a six-month trip up the river and a $5,000 fine. Federal Magistrate Bristow Marchant denied Bursey's request for a jury trial because his violation is categorized as a petty offense. Some observers believe that the feds are seeking to set a precedent in a conservative state such as South Carolina that could then be used against protesters nationwide.

    Bursey's trial took place on Nov. 12 and 13. His lawyers sought the Secret Service documents they believed would lay out the official policies on restricting critical speech at presidential visits. The Bush administration sought to block all access to the documents, but Marchant ruled that the lawyers could have limited access.

    Bursey sought to subpoena Attorney General John Ashcroft and presidential adviser Karl Rove to testify. Bursey lawyer Lewis Pitts declared, "We intend to find out from Mr. Ashcroft why and how the decision to prosecute Mr. Bursey was reached." The magistrate refused, however, to enforce the subpoenas. Secret Service agent Holly Abel testified at the trial that Bursey was told to move to the "free-speech zone" but refused to cooperate.

    The feds have offered some bizarre rationales for hog-tying protesters. Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained to National Public Radio, "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way." Except for having their constitutional rights shredded.

    The ACLU, along with several other organizations, is suing the Secret Service for what it charges is a pattern and practice of suppressing protesters at Bush events in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas and elsewhere. The ACLU's Witold Walczak said of the protesters, "The individuals we are talking about didn't pose a security threat; they posed a political threat."

    The Secret Service is duty-bound to protect the president. But it is ludicrous to presume that would-be terrorists are lunkheaded enough to carry anti-Bush signs when carrying pro-Bush signs would give them much closer access. And even a policy of removing all people carrying signs -- as has happened in some demonstrations -- is pointless because potential attackers would simply avoid carrying signs. Assuming that terrorists are as unimaginative and predictable as the average federal bureaucrat is not a recipe for presidential longevity.

    The Bush administration's anti-protester bias proved embarrassing for two American allies with long traditions of raucous free speech, resulting in some of the most repressive restrictions in memory in free countries.

    When Bush visited Australia in October, Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mark Riley observed, "The basic right of freedom of speech will adopt a new interpretation during the Canberra visits this week by George Bush and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao. Protesters will be free to speak as much as they like just as long as they can't be heard."

    Demonstrators were shunted to an area away from the Federal Parliament building and prohibited from using any public address system in the area.

    For Bush's recent visit to London, the White House demanded that British police ban all protest marches, close down the center of the city and impose a "virtual three-day shutdown of central London in a bid to foil disruption of the visit by anti-war protesters," according to Britain's Evening Standard. But instead of a "free-speech zone," the Bush administration demanded an "exclusion zone" to protect Bush from protesters' messages.

    Such unprecedented restrictions did not inhibit Bush from portraying himself as a champion of freedom during his visit. In a speech at Whitehall on Nov. 19, Bush hyped the "forward strategy of freedom" and declared, "We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings."

    Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists. In a May terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who "expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government." If police vigorously followed this advice, millions of Americans could be added to the official lists of suspected terrorists.

    Protesters have claimed that police have assaulted them during demonstrations in New York, Washington and elsewhere.

    One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.

    When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

    Van Winkle justified classifying protesters as terrorists: "I've heard terrorism described as anything that is violent or has an economic impact, and shutting down a port certainly would have some economic impact. Terrorism isn't just bombs going off and killing people."

    Such aggressive tactics become more ominous in the light of the Bush administration's advocacy, in its Patriot II draft legislation, of nullifying all judicial consent decrees restricting state and local police from spying on those groups who may oppose government policies.

    On May 30, 2002, Ashcroft effectively abolished restrictions on FBI surveillance of Americans' everyday lives first imposed in 1976. One FBI internal newsletter encouraged FBI agents to conduct more interviews with antiwar activists "for plenty of reasons, chief of which it will enhance the paranoia endemic in such circles and will further service to get the point across that there is an FBI agent behind every mailbox."

    The FBI took a shotgun approach toward protesters partly because of the FBI's "belief that dissident speech and association should be prevented because they were incipient steps toward the possible ultimate commission of act which might be criminal," according to a Senate report.

    On Nov. 23 news broke that the FBI is actively conducting surveillance of antiwar demonstrators, supposedly to "blunt potential violence by extremist elements," according to a Reuters interview with a federal law enforcement official.

    Given the FBI's expansive definition of "potential violence" in the past, this is a net that could catch almost any group or individual who falls into official disfavor.

    James Bovard is the author of "Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil." This article is adapted from one that appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of the American Conservative.

    2004 San Francisco Chronicle[/b][/quote]

    ---

    What a bastard <_< . How can any of you guys honestly support this man? he&#39;s awful on so many levels. This is America, this is supposed to be a democracy. I don&#39;t care if you think Bush is right you should still support the right of people to protest the President. Disgusting.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Secret Service has done this kind of thing for every president and every candidate for president (as Dean will soon learn) since at least 1960. Otherwise, it would be chaotic bedlam at every appearance these guys make. In this enviroment, to say that assassins or terrorists would "never be so obvious" as to brandish anti-Bush signs is remarkably stupid-no one really knows. And if you&#39;re really worried about the FBI, let me assure you from "professional" experience that unless it gets between an agent and his lunch, there is little to fear. As to "police brutality"-blah, blah, blah. The last thing most NYPD personnel wanted to do at the world trade conference last winter was touch any of the great unwashed black-clad trustafarians unless they had no choice otherwise. Do these people have jobs and houses? More likely, they are just rich, whiny spoiled brats with too much free time.

    Incidentally, "The American Conservative" is a collaboration between Patrick Buchanan and Taki.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    That pesky little 1st amendment.

    Bill Neel said it best; "As far as I&#39;m concerned, the whole country is a free- speech zone."

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 04:25 PM
    [b] The Secret Service has done this kind of thing for every president and every candidate for president (as Dean will soon learn) since at least 1960. Otherwise, it would be chaotic bedlam at every appearance these guys make. [/b][/quote]
    [b]Wrong&#33;[/b]

    First of all the Secret Service didn&#39;t even begin protecting presidential candidates until after Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968.

    Furthermore, it wasn&#39;t until this president that they corralled people into these so called "free-speech" zones on every presidential outing. Before Bush II this tactic was only reserved for the so-called major events like conventions. BTW that was wrong too. All presidents should be aware of protests on a first hand basis.

    Bush is a cowardly little frat boy punk&#33;

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    4,530
    Post Thanks / Like
    So, had "right wing zealots" blocked President Clinton&#39;s limo at an appearance, you&#39;d have been all right with that? You can&#39;t run any government like that. No one is saying they can&#39;t protest, merely that they had to stay in a specific area. Speech is limited in many ways. Your idea that all speech should be completely without any limits isn&#39;t realistic, no matter who the president is. Otherwise, we&#39;d have to allow protestors to sit outside the window of the Oval Office 24/7.

    The Secret Service under President Clinton closed Pennsylvania Avenue to traffic and also instituted a 2-day social security and name verification system if you want to take the White House tour. People were denied access to the White House(and probably rightly so) for security reasons. And frankly, that all seems pretty reasonable. It would seem your outrage is selective.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    chirp, chirp, chirp.


    Yeah - I&#39;m going to trust that this account is complete and unbiased. Suurrre.

    I am sure ALL of these "protestors" were being "peacuful" and none of them were "rioters."

    This is GREAT. I honestly love it that those on the left are trying as hard as they can to create the impression that we are living in a totalitarian state. It insults those people who actually do live in those states. Could you imagine some dumbass like Tailgators trying to bond with a guy in Syra or Iran or who lived under the Taliban rule? "I hear you brotha&#33; I have to live with the horror of reading about protestors who get arrested&#33; Sure, I spend most of my time openly ripping our leader on a message boad, but still, the struggle goes on&#33;&#33;"

    What a joke. Tail - your last sentence contradicts anything you may have to say about "stifiling dissent." If we truly lived in an oppressive state, you wouldn&#39;t be able to type that. You are arrogantly ignorant, which should be impossible.


    It is this type of idiocy that makes heroes out of people like Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks. I honestly never thought that people could be this self-important, emotional, incorrect and stupid all at once.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    Did you ever see the large protests of Bill or Madame Clinton?

    The answer is no -- because they expanded on the secret services "protest free zone".

    Tailgators and bitonti ought to get a life (or a room).

    Once again, President Monkey "outmonkeys" the monkeys using their own techniques.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 04:42 PM
    [b] So, had "right wing zealots" blocked President Clinton&#39;s limo at an appearance, you&#39;d have been all right with that? You can&#39;t run any government like that. No one is saying they can&#39;t protest, merely that they had to stay in a specific area. Speech is limited in many ways. Your idea that all speech should be completely without any limits isn&#39;t realistic, no matter who the president is. [/b][/quote]
    Who&#39;s talking about blocking the president&#39;s car?

    We&#39;re just talking about the right to hold a sign with a message on it. Something the United States Constitution specifically guarantees&#33;

    Of course there are constitutional limits on free speech, like the famous shouting fire in a crowded theatre. But the right to have your protest heard is fundamental. The concept of "free speech zones" would be abhorent to our founding fathers.

    Slowly but surely the Spirit of &#39;76 is being smothered in the United States and its tragic.

  9. #9
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,992
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 04:42 PM
    [b]

    The Secret Service under President Clinton closed Pennsylvania Avenue to traffic and also instituted a 2-day social security and name verification system if you want to take the White House tour. People were denied access to the White House(and probably rightly so) for security reasons. And frankly, that all seems pretty reasonable. It would seem your outrage is selective. [/b][/quote]
    Actually, the Clintons decimated virtually any semblance of reasonable security at the White House during their eight year reign. Read FBI Agent Gary Aldrich&#39;s book "Unlimited Access" -- you would not believe some of the scumbags and felons that made up that administration.

    As for the "free speech" zones, I don&#39;t know if it was the same for Bill Clinton or not, although I think we would have seen and remembered plenty of humorous Monica/Cigar etc. signs if he was as free and tolerant as bitonti&#39;s indignance seems to imply.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 04:50 PM
    [b] Slowly but surely the Spirit of &#39;76 is being smothered in the United States and its tragic. [/b][/quote]
    Yeah, yeah, yeah...

    Maybe France is more to your liking.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb+Jan 5 2004, 04:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Spirit of Weeb @ Jan 5 2004, 04:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--tailgators[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 04:50 PM
    [b] Slowly but surely the Spirit of &#39;76 is being smothered in the United States and its tragic. [/b][/quote]
    Yeah, yeah, yeah...

    Maybe France is more to your liking. [/b][/quote]
    The sad part weeb, is that since they don&#39;t cover it on FOX NEWS you probably don&#39;t even realize what the concept behind the "Spirit of &#39;76" is.

    BTW... I&#39;ve been to France and its a great country&#33; You ought to visit there sometime.

    And 5-ever next month I&#39;m off to Egypt, I&#39;ll check in with some people there. One gift of Irish decent is the ablility to relate with people the world over.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is honestly HILARIOUS.

    I LOVE it that people like Bit and Tail actually believe this type of crap. This is GREAT. It makes me so happy.

    You guys are so [i]wise[/i] and [i]brave[/i] and important, aren&#39;t you...ha ha ha. What a joke&#33;

    We live in the Matrix, man. Chomsky is right about everything. :blink: :ph34r:


    How do you guys sleep at night? Aren&#39;t you ever worried Bush&#39;s SS will come for you?&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :blink:

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 05:01 PM
    [b] This is honestly HILARIOUS.

    I LOVE it that people like Bit and Tail actually believe this type of crap. This is GREAT. It makes me so happy.


    [/b][/quote]
    Be specific, what item in the above mentioned story is fundamentally incorrect.
    Can you refute one thing?

  14. #14
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [color=green]None of you libs complained about free speech prior to GWB. Free speech is free speech, right?[/color]

    [b][SIZE=3]Clinton Approves Bill Limiting Protests at Abortion Clinics[/SIZE][/b]
    By Ruth Marcus, The Washington Post

    WASHINGTON - President Clinton Thursday signed legislation that bars antiabortion demonstrators from blocking access to clinics or threatening patients, decrying "the extremism and the vigilante conduct which gave rise to this law."

    Two antiabortion groups immediately filed suit to overturn the law, arguing that it interfered with their constitutional rights of free speech and religious freedom.

    Clinton signed the law, the "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act," at a White House ceremony attended by the children of David Gunn, the Florida physician who was murdered by an antiabortion protestor last year.

    "We simply cannot - we must not - continue to allow the attacks, the incidents of arson, the campaigns of intimidation upon law-abiding citizens that (have) given rise to this law," Clinton said, citing the murder of Gunn and the shooting of another doctor outside his clinic in Wichita, Kan., last summer.

    "No person seeking medical care, no physician providing that care should have to endure harassments or threats or obstruction or intimidation or even murder from vigilantes who take the law into their own hands because they think they know what the law ought to be," Clinton said.

    The law, which has been a priority for the abortion rights movement, makes it a crime to block access to clinics, damage their property or injure or intimidate paitents and staff. Approved by the Senate 69 to 30 this month, following a 241 to 174 House vote, it calls for jail terms and stiff fines.

    It was enacted after the Supreme Court ruled last year that an 1871 civil rights law could not be used to halt antiabortion protests and a Justice Department review concluded existing statutes were inadequate to deal with the growing problem. Abortion rights supporters say there have been 3,000 incidents of violence, vandalism and harassment at abortion clinics since 1977.

    Antiabortion activists argue that the law punishes them for legitimate civil disobedience and for expressing their religious views. The National Right to Life Committee accused the president of allowing abortion rights supporters to "crush peaceful protesters&#39; free speech with federal lawsuits."

    Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, the group that has blockaded clinics across the country, said the law "shows the ever growing anti-Christian persecution that is coming from our government."

    But the American Civil Liberties Union called the law "a milestone in congressional protection for reproductive freedom" and said it protects "peaceful protest and free speech."

    Clinton acknowledged "genuine and deeply felt differences on the subject of abortion" but said it was "time to turn away" from expressing those views through violence and "verbal extremism." Responding to critics of the legislation, he said, "This bill is designed to eliminate violence and coercion. It is not a strike against the First Amendment." The signing of the bill is the latest of several changes the Clinton administration has made on behalf of supporters of abortion rights, who spent the previous 12 years battling efforts by the Reagan and Bush administrations to limit abortion rights in Congress and the courts.

    Since taking office, Clinton has lifted the moratorium on federal funding of research using fetal tissue, reversed the prohibition against abortions at military facilities, undone the "gag rule" prohibiting federally funded family planning clinics from providing information about abortion, and - just last week - lifted the ban on importation of RU-486, a drug that induces abortions.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Copyright 1994,95, The Tech. All rights reserved.
    This story was published on May 27, 1994.
    Volume 114, Number 27.
    This story appeared on page 2.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 05:15 PM
    [b] WASHINGTON - President Clinton Thursday signed legislation that bars antiabortion demonstrators from blocking access to clinics or threatening patients, decrying "the extremism and the vigilante conduct which gave rise to this law."

    [/b][/quote]
    I guess you didn&#39;t even bother to read the first paragraph of the story you posted. Free speech wasn&#39;t banned what was banned was obtruction and threats.

    BTW, no one is suggesting that Bush&#39;s path should be obstructed or he should be subjected to threats. All we want is the right to hold a sign that voices our disagreements with him. Afterall the U.S. Constitution guarantees us this right.

    Stop comparing Apples and Oranges. It&#39;s dishonest.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Jan 5 2004, 05:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Jan 5 2004, 05:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 05:15 PM
    [b] WASHINGTON - President Clinton Thursday signed legislation that bars antiabortion demonstrators from blocking access to clinics or threatening patients, decrying "the extremism and the vigilante conduct which gave rise to this law."

    [/b][/quote]
    I guess you didn&#39;t even bother to read the first paragraph of the story you posted. Free speech wasn&#39;t banned what was banned was obtruction and threats.

    BTW, no one is suggesting that Bush&#39;s path should be obstructed or he should be subjected to threats. All we want is the right to hold a sign that voices our disagreements with him. Afterall the U.S. Constitution guarantees us this right.

    Stop comparing Apples and Oranges. It&#39;s dishonest. [/b][/quote]
    And your protestors are not banned from protesting. And the media is not banned from covering any protest. I see protestors on the news in America all the time.

    The secret service has the right to move any hostile gathering away from the president. The cops have the right to require permits and move (not stop) protests wherever they see fit.

    Why don&#39;t YOU be honest for once?

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Jan 5 2004, 04:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Jan 5 2004, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 05:01 PM
    [b] This is honestly HILARIOUS.

    I LOVE it that people like Bit and Tail actually believe this type of crap. This is GREAT. It makes me so happy.


    [/b][/quote]
    Be specific, what item in the above mentioned story is fundamentally incorrect.
    Can you refute one thing?[/b][/quote]
    Tail -

    At first glance, this is just standard crapola that any idiot who has taken a journalism or creative writing class can produce. The author editorializes all over the place within this article and justifies THOSE opinions by citing OTHER editorial writers as "evidence." It&#39;s essentially his only support. Imagine, if George Will cited WF Buckley, Bill O&#39;Reilly or Rush Limbaugh&#39;s opinions as "evidence." He then goes into some absurd obfuscation about the intelligence and predictability of terrorists and how that would necessarily relate to signs and protests. He never mentions nor ever considers the fact that many &#39;protestors&#39; are in fact rioters who are not peaceful and that free speech does not equal closing down a port or the fact that people like Hinkley (crazy, violent loons) exist. He gives only Bursey&#39;s account of why he was arrested (not the cops&#39;) and doesn&#39;t cross-examine him at all. It is very possible that Bursey WAS trespassing. He says "observers" are "believing" this SC case is being used to set a preceedent?&#33; I mean, he is literally inventing a Bogey-man. What is an "observer?" I can write anything like that: "Observers believe that Tailgators is really a woman...." This is Journalism 101, Tail....

    Those "protestors" at that Oakland port were not "peaceful" and they were blocking that port which IS terrorism, by a definition in place long before 9-11 or GW Bush. You cannot shut down commerce. In the same way that pro-life activists sought to shut down abortion clinics by restricting access is terrorism, so is attempting to shut down a port. Have to love the ever-present "internal" FBI memo, though - can&#39;t have a good editorial without those elusive documents.

    This is standard liberal clap-trap. You and Bit lap it up like puppies and arrogantly call others sheep. Hey, that&#39;s your right.

    Have fun. It is HILARIOUS to me.

    My favorite, favorite, favorite story from all of 2003 was about that dumb American woman (forget her name) who was a Human Shield in Iraq prior to the War. She had to leave becuase the Iraqis mistreated her and didn&#39;t put her where she wanted to be put (gasp&#33;) and she also talked with a bunch of Iraqis and discovered (gasp&#33;) that they actually supported the war to remove Saddam. When she got back to the states she couldn&#39;t believe that there were legal repercussions for her crimes. Ah - liberal heroism = all reward, no risk.

    What a moron.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    -_-

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Jan 5 2004, 04:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Jan 5 2004, 04:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Bugg[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 04:42 PM
    [b] So, had "right wing zealots" blocked President Clinton&#39;s limo at an appearance, you&#39;d have been all right with that? You can&#39;t run any government like that. No one is saying they can&#39;t protest, merely that they had to stay in a specific area. Speech is limited in many ways. Your idea that all speech should be completely without any limits isn&#39;t realistic, no matter who the president is. [/b][/quote]
    Who&#39;s talking about blocking the president&#39;s car?

    We&#39;re just talking about the right to hold a sign with a message on it. Something the United States Constitution specifically guarantees&#33;

    Of course there are constitutional limits on free speech, like the famous shouting fire in a crowded theatre. But the right to have your protest heard is fundamental. The concept of "free speech zones" would be abhorent to our founding fathers.

    Slowly but surely the Spirit of &#39;76 is being smothered in the United States and its tragic. [/b][/quote]
    You&#39;re full of sh&#33;t and have no clue as to what you are talking about.

    In July of this year hier Hitlery came to the Borders Books in White Plains, NY pimping her book. I decided to protest the hypocritical *****.

    I made my sign, got there at 7PM when the event started and peacefully began to march back and forth, holding my sign over my head.

    Immediately, her security, the Hitlery youth, came out and pointed towards me as they spoke with the WP police. The police officer came over to me, first laughing saying he agreed with my solo-protest and then began to tell me where I could and [i]could not[/i] march with my sign.

    I had no problem with that as I was not there for confrontation rather just to make my point and told the officer so.

    For the next hour I marched in front of the stores big windows, where I was allowed to, and pissed off heir Hitlery and her people while receiving the applause of 100&#39;s of passerby&#39;s.

    [i]Slowly but surely the Spirit of &#39;76 is being smothered in the United States and its tragic. [/i]

    And if howard dean if elected (GOD FORBID) he&#39;s already stated he makes sure it is totally destroyed&#33;

    [img]http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/dean_lightweight.jpg[/img]

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Jan 5 2004, 04:26 PM
    [b]That pesky little 1st amendment.

    Bill Neel said it best; "As far as I&#39;m concerned, the whole country is a free- speech zone."[/b][/quote]
    Funny...the left always wants to decry "free speech infringment" yet they are the biggest culprits of it all. This op-ed piece states it all:

    [b]HOWARD THE COWARD

    By RALPH PETERS [/b]

    January 5, 2004 -- IT&#39;S fashionable in left- wing circles to describe anyone who admires America as a fascist. But the real totalitarian threats of our time come from the left. And no public figure embodies the left&#39;s contempt for basic freedoms more perfectly than Howard Dean.
    One secular gospel of the left preaches that the Patriot Act has drastically curtailed American freedom. Free speech, the teacup Trotskys claim, is a thing of the past.

    Whenever one of my forlorn leftie pals raises the issue, I ask him or her to cite a single example of how the Patriot Act has limited their personal liberty. They never can. Instead, they rail about what-ifs and slippery slopes.

    But Howard Dean and his Deanie-weenies do all they can to restrict the free speech of others. I can predict with certainty that Dean&#39;s Internet Gestapo will pounce on this column, twisting the facts and vilifying the writer, just as they do when anyone challenges Howard the Coward.

    Free speech, you see, is only for the left.

    Dean wants to muzzle his Democratic competitors, too. He believes the Democratic National Committee should shut them up. His followers try to intimidate other presidential aspirants by surrounding the cars delivering them to their rallies and chanting to drown out their speech. Of course, Dean denies any foreknowledge or blame.

    These are the techniques employed by Hitler&#39;s Brownshirts. Had Goebbels enjoyed access to the internet, he would have used the same swarm tactics as Dean&#39;s Flannelshirts.

    Then there are Dean&#39;s endless "Big Lies": Liberating 25 million Iraqis was "wrong." Saddam&#39;s capture doesn&#39;t make any difference. Osama bin Laden should be presumed innocent, despite his own admission of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks. The Global War on Terror is a failure. The economy&#39;s a disaster. And the administration is hiding terrible secrets.

    Paranoids and conspiracy theorists rejoice&#33; You finally have a candidate of your own.

    Of course, when Dean seals his gubernatorial records so Americans can&#39;t examine his own back-room deals, that&#39;s perfectly legitimate.

    In Dean&#39;s alternate reality, everything the Bush administration has done and might do is a failure, no matter the facts. The president&#39;s even responsible for Mad Cow Disease. It&#39;s Goebbels again: Just keep repeating the lies until the lies assume the force of truth.

    I met Dean a few times while taping a TV panel show in Montreal. The first time I saw him, chattering on a monitor, I had no idea who he was. I assumed he was some small-time politician on the hustle, Babbitt at the ballot box.

    I was stunned to learn he was (then) the governor of one of our 50 states - even if the state was the People&#39;s Republic of Vermont.

    After a few tapings, I declined to continue doing the show. It was a waste of time to travel so far just to spend all the air-time politely explaining why Dean&#39;s comments on foreign policy bore no relation to the reality I&#39;d seen with my own eyes.

    Dean was already practicing the Big Lie. Montreal was just a stop on his journey from Munich to Berlin. He was already looking around for his Leni Riefenstahl.

    Listen to Dean&#39;s rhetoric, especially on security and international issues. He never offers specifics; it&#39;s all hocus-pocus. He knows how best to deal with terrorists. We voters from the humble Volk need to take it on trust. He understands how to employ our military more effectively - despite dodging the draft during the Vietnam War.

    Dean&#39;s going to improve our intelligence system, too. How? If pressed, he may go so far as to mention HUMINT - a term he doesn&#39;t understand - or the need for more Arabic speakers. Great, Herr Howie. We agree. But how does he intend to develop our human intelligence capabilities?

    Which presidential directives and findings would he rescind or issue? Precisely what would he do that isn&#39;t being done?

    He has no answers. None.

    As for the need for more linguists, how would he recruit them, then train and retain them? Does he intend to reinstate the draft?

    Dean never deals in specifics on security issues. Because he doesn&#39;t know the specifics. It&#39;s all Big Brother Doublespeak.

    Perhaps it would be easier for those on the left to grasp this column&#39;s arguments if we cast the drama with characters closer to their hearts.

    Dean began his campaign as an uncompromising Lenin. Now that his Bolsheviks have been organized, he&#39;s trying to pose as Gorbachev for the masses. But for anyone who pays attention to what this power-hungry huckster says and does, he comes off as a down-market Brezhnev.

    Of course, I don&#39;t really see Howard Dean as a potential dictator - just another hollow man soiling the halls of power. And this is America. Our system is far stronger than any individual. Besides, even the vilest dictators have a vision of something greater than themselves. Howard Dean has nothing beyond ambition.

    And a shameless disregard for the First Amendment.

    [i]Ralph Peters is a retired Army intelligence officer and the author of "Beyond Baghdad." [/i]

    [url=http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4965.htm]http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolu...mnists/4965.htm[/url]

    [img]http://clark04.50megs.com/dean.jpg[/img]

    That one&#39;s for the Moveon people...something that pathetic loser Al Gore should do....Move-the-eff-on&#33;

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us