AMERIKA? Komrade Bush and his Administration is the bestest!

[carrrnuttt]

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000655.php

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/Wo..._031112-1.html

WTF???

I thought Bush was a Liberal. Turns out, he's just a dictator.


And before the retorts come piling in, here's reply from another forum I posted this in, along with my reply back:

Originally Posted by Scoriox

Don't blame them for moving people that are angry away from the President.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

How simplistic. Do yo really think that the people that would attempt to hurt the President will be holding a placard against him? Besides, in a motorcade, the CIC is usually in an armored vehicle.

Don't get me wrong, as much as I can't stand the man, I wouldn't want him being hurt as Commander-in-Chief. I'd still jump in front of a bullet for him, because of his position, not because of him.

It's just that it only seems that he doesn't want the bad placards showing on the evening news report about his visit to wherever, and because of that, people are going to jail, and having to pay lawyer's fees.

Liberty for all...if you support Bush.

[2strokebloke]

that wacky "president" if he could get his way he'd just abolish all of the ammendments now wouldn't he?
Maybe he's not evil, maybe he's just got a low self esteem, and the critics make him cry at night.
Bush is a bigger danger to this country's freedom, than terrorists ever have been.

[carrrnuttt]

Well, there are some VERY staunch Bush supporters in the other forum I argue politics at.

There was a remark made, and a rebuttal I gave that seemed to have put a crashing halt to all responses from the Bush apologists:

Originally Posted by KevinB120

how amazing such a non-story works to evoke bad feelings about a certain President.

NO PROTESTERS ARE EVER ALLOWED NEAR POLLITICIANS IN PUBLIC EVENTS IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY, EVERY PUBLIC APPEARANCE BY ANY POLITICIAN BRINGS PROTESTERS, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW THEM ON TV AT THE SAME TIME AS THE POLITICIAN????

Go to the NEXT Presidential(or candidate) you can find making an appearance in your area, and tell me where the protesters(they will always be there) are.

Cripes. Damn ABC is good. Lieberman gets a free ride fighting for censorship. A few sentences, and Bush is a dictator:rollseyes

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9801-Clinton.html

I didn't see anything about the Libertarians being hauled to prison, or being told to stay in a fenced-in area there...

THEY WERE RIGHT OUTSIDE THE AUDITORIUM CLINTON WAS IN. Not "up to 3 miles away", as some recent reports have said about Bush's "free-speech zones". And YOU KNOW the Libertarian party would be the first to point out if they were given designated areas to protest in.

Let me add this quote from the article:

"The coverage of the event, typically, centered around breathless coverage of President Clinton and his staged event," he said -- but also included more than a dozen mentions of the LP's efforts on radio and television and in local newspapers.

"This effort did generate interest in the Libertarian Party," said Sutherland. "[We're] already reaping the benefits of increased attention."

[YogsVR4]

So we're bringing arguements from another forum to here?

I think we should just drop the title for this forum from politics, investments and current affairs and just rename it "BASH U.S. POLITICAL FIGURES" with a sub forum for the Bush haters to vent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

What the article describes is the same shit as every president has done. There is nothing new here. I went to protest Clinton on a visit to Farmington Hills several years ago and they shuffled us off to a holding area as well.

Nobody is restricting what people want to say. They are restricting where they can do it. The media knows they are there and can decide for themselves if they want to spend time talking to them. Nobody is under lock and key. The fact is you cannot say what you want whenever and where ever you want.

[Marc04]

When there are issues such as these, they need to be addressed and this is the best area to do it.

So we just all go around with our heads in the air saying that there is nothing wrong?

[DGB454]

I thought it was a little strange that people started bringing in posts from other forums too but I didn't say anything because I thought maybe it was common here.


Yogs, you could play that game too and bash other world leaders. I mean c'mon...there are a lot of knuckle heads in power. Just look north or south.
Or for that matter east and west .They're everywhere. An almost endless supply of crooked world leaders are ripe for the kicking.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

So we're bringing arguements from another forum to here?

So I wouldn't have to repeat the same arguments I have used before, against the same excuses I have heard, and will hear again.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

What the article describes is the same shit as every president has done. There is nothing new here. I went to protest Clinton on a visit to Farmington Hills several years ago and they shuffled us off to a holding area as well.

And? Because Klinton did it, makes it right for Bush to do it? Were you 3 miles away from Clinton?

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Nobody is restricting what people want to say. They are restricting where they can do it.

True. And if you have a sign that says "You are teh be5te5t eVaR! Pres. bUSH!", you can say it 2 miles closer to him.

http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/d...3/t_cover.html

A quote:

"This has nothing to do with security. If it did, no one would be allowed within 30 feet of the place," he adds.

UT law professor Glenn Reynolds—a First Amendment scholar who writes the blog, InstaPundit, and Metro Pulse commentaries—disagreed that it's a new phenomena.

"Ever since the '68 Democratic convention, people have been much more concerned with crowd control," he says. The attempt to assassinate President Reagan, the Oklahoma bombing, and the World Trade Center attack all led to stricter security.

"My thought on this is it's perfectly reasonable to do things for traffic and security reasons. [But] we've had events where they set up a protest zone a mile or two away and that's absolutely ridiculous," Reynolds says. "The whole United States is supposed to be a free speech zone.

"My own sense has been that we worry too much about this sort of thing. Nobody ever gets fired for doing too good a job on security, so they naturally tend to overreach," he adds. "So the Secret Service assumes somewhat stupidly that someone with an anti-Bush sign is more of a security threat."

Walzczak agreed that the practice isn't new under Bush. Nixon was accused of free speech abuses, as were the administrations of Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton. But he adds, "This is the first president we've seen [have] widespread use of protester discrimination."

[carrrnuttt]

You know what? I'm not quite done bringing quotes in:

Originally Posted by Scoriox

Im done with this, because you see this in a contorted manner that does not allow you for an open mind.

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

HAHA. That's funny, man.

I see it contorted? I'm not the one that has to keep making up excuses for a crooked man, and his crooked cronies just because he's on your "side". Dubya's THE BESTEST, right? Maybe you need to look at things "contorted" too.

I don't have an open mind?? I voted for the lying bastard! Did you see where the first article came from? The AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE.

I'm not criticizing him for anti-Liberalism either, as I consider myself anti-Liberal. IT IS THE LIBERAL, MONEY-GRUBBING, POWER-MONGERING, ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL crap of his that I am criticizing, and the fact that the "Conservative"-ruled Congress is too pussy to stand up to his spending.

He's criticizing Kerry for going against the Patriot Act. THE PATRIOT ACT WAS KLINTON'S BABY!

Wake the f*ck up, people.

I'm shocked at you, Yogs. For a supposed "Libertarian", you seem to be very lax towards this obvious hindrance to Americans' rights.

Here's the 1st Amendment:
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let's start with the definition of abridging:

abridging
Abridge \A*bridge"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Abridged; p. pr. & vb. n. Abridging.] [OE. abregen, OF. abregier, F. abr['e]ger, fr. L. abbreviare; ad + brevis short. See Brief and cf. Abbreviate.] 1. To make shorter; to shorten in duration; to lessen; to diminish; to curtail; as, to abridge labor; to abridge power or rights. ``The bridegroom . . . abridged his visit.'' --Smollett.

She retired herself to Sebaste, and abridged her train from state to necessity. --Fuller.

2. To shorten or contract by using fewer words, yet retaining the sense; to epitomize; to condense; as, to abridge a history or dictionary.

3. To deprive; to cut off; -- followed by of, and formerly by from; as, to abridge one of his rights.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[TexasF355F1]

Since I know Yogs would have ultimately have done this I'll save him the trouble.

lib·er·tar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-târ-n)
n.
One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
One who believes in free will.

[2strokebloke]

This whole topic is rather wacky. I'm somewhat ashamed that it seems many don't care that their constitution is being pushed around like this.
I would like to point out that yes, protesters of Clinton were not allowed to stand in the front rows and hold signs at his speaches, but they also were not put in a "protester playpen" three miles away.
No matter who's the leader, we can't let the government wipe their asses on the rules they're supposed to be upholding and respecting.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

This whole topic is rather wacky. I'm somewhat ashamed that it seems many don't care that their constitution is being pushed around like this.

The constitution has been under assualt from corporate power beginning the moment it was formed. One of the main objectives of the constitution was to limit corporate power so that corporations would always remain under government control.

This erosion began with quasi constitutional rights for corporations, through to actual rights exceeding those of the individual, and finally to general incorporation and the abandonement of the corporate charter system. This last step removed the one remaining effective control of government over corporates.

It seems that removing all corporate restraints was not enough and now the rights of individuals must be eroded as well.

[DGB454]

I know this sounds bad but I'm really tired of protesters. I don't care what they are protesting I really have no need for them. They just seem like people who feel the need to whine about something.
I know they deserve the rights set down by the our founding fathers but I would rather not have to look at them exercising those rights. I'm not saying take away their rights just take them away from my sight.

[YogsVR4]

Carrrnuttt -

We were not moved three miles away. It was about half a mile.

I never said it was ok for Clinton. Nor did I say it was ok for Bush. What we have here is you putting words in my mouth.

You keep assuming that I am sticking up for Bush when all I was doing was pointing out that the same situation has been around for as long as I can remember (I'll get my dad to remind me how he was hussled away from getting near Kennedy with any signs of protest).

I'm not going to read all those quotes coming from the other site. I've locked threads where an arguements from another forum are brought here. This is slightly different as you're the only one from there.

m shocked at you, Yogs. For a supposed "Libertarian", you seem to be very lax towards this obvious hindrance to Americans' rights.

Again, chicken little, what constitional right was impeeded? Were the protesters not able to protest? Or do you believe that the freedom of speach and the right to assemble means that someone can say what they want where they want?

I've seen pleanty of protesters around where Bush has been. The nuts of the story you're using as a basis was an organized speach the president was invited to. Using your logic, those people who wish to protest in a church during service should be allowed to do so. Then I wonder why the UN probably wouldn't let me into the buiding with a 'UN MUST BE ELIMINATED' signs.

If its not that then it must be the distance that the protesters were moved from the scene. What distance would satisy you? Was there no other building or room that the protesters could have rented for themselves within that three miles? Or, again, should they be allowed to go where ever they want.

Finally, I will suggest that the topic continues on its own from the AF membership and not from that other site or this thread gets locked.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by DGB454

I know this sounds bad but I'm really tired of protesters. I don't care what they are protesting I really have no need for them. They just seem like people who feel the need to whine about something.
I know they deserve the rights set down by the our founding fathers but I would rather not have to look at them exercising those rights. I'm not saying take away their rights just take them away from my sight.

Dude, your own partisan buddy up there, Yogs, is a claimed protester.

Which one do you have a problem against? The ones who were picketing Clinton, or the ones who were picketing Bush? If you say one, you'll have to say the other too. Otherwise you're just some biased hypocrite.

Trust me, I was one of the ones yelling at the TV, as I saw the anti-war protesters in late 2002, and early last year.

I might not like them, or agree with them, but I fought for the Constitution in Desert Storm (I would like to think so, anyway) that guarantees that they can stand where they want, and say what they want within reason.

[carrrnuttt]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Again, chicken little, what constitional right was impeeded? Were the protesters not able to protest?

Well, I have no idea what you're implying with the "chicken little" comment, but if it was intended as some form of name-calling or insult, I'd just like to say that I thought you were bigger than that. If I am wrong in my interpretation, I apologize.
________________________________

Anyhow. Did you READ any of the links I gave? Or did your partisan blinders prevent you, just as you refuse to read pertinent quotes, just because "they came from another site"?

Just as I commented to DGB454 above, there's a guarantee of equality that the constitution implies, when it comes to these kind of situations.

One of the ways past politicos (Presidents included) have avoided confronting their "voiced critics" have been to mask it behind the shroud of "security".

Here's the deal (or part of it):

When Bush came 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, though 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.”

If you are going to send away peaceful, retired citizens with a simple banner, in the name of "security", then why keep the ones that say "Bush is teh be5te5t!1!!" right in front of him?

I don't know exactly what the Bush supporters looked-like, but I am sure there were a few dubious-looking ones in the crowd. Why not send them away?

And I quote:

Originally Posted by carrrnuttt

If you say one, you'll have to say the other too. Otherwise you're just some biased hypocrite.

Mr. Neel's sign might not have been favorable to the administration, but in no way was it vilifying towards the government in general, or even the Office of the President. He (Mr. Neel), wasn't part of any group, or organization. He was just a Citizen, exercising his rights.

His sign just happened to be derogatory towards Bush and his family.

Thing is, if you think about it, do you REALLY think somebody audacious enough to attempt anything against the President will be sitting there with a placard against him, calling out attention to himself?

If you're gonna call it a "security measure", do it for ALL. Not just the ones with a sign against. To do otherwise just shows political bigotry at play.
________________________________

There was a recent concert here in Arizona that was held by some Aryan organization, purportedly to raise funds for their group, but was also rumored to be a recruiting campaign.

Do I agree with them? No. Do I think them potentially dangerous to others that might not agree with them, or are not of their chosen race? Yes.

Can I, or the local LE agencies do anything to stop this kind of gathering within the law? No. And you know what? I am DAMN proud of that fact. It means the Constitution still works. But when shit like this happens:

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.”

...and no reports are given, stating that everybody else outside the "free-speech zones" were arrested, that happened to be holding pro-Bush signs, that is just, well...wrong.

"Free-speech zones" -- HAH. How ironic.