Forum Discussion

On commies and their press conferences. (July 25, 2006 11:37 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
So some years back when Soviet Leaders would have press conferences and appearances all the question they get would be prescreened question from the loyal boot licking "journalists" and no one ever invited any dissedents to them. In fact the dissidents were arrested and sent to Siberia.

There is an ancient proverb that exists in many cultures.
It goes, "Those who do not study history are bound to repeat it"

And now for some facts and potential explanations on why they happened from the security point of view

------- What Happened ----

"When school was canceled to accommodate a campaign visit by President Bush, the two 55-year-old teachers reckoned the time was ripe to voice their simmering discontent with the administration's policies.

Christine Nelson showed up at the Cedar Rapids rally with a Kerry-Edwards button pinned on her T-shirt; Alice McCabe clutched a small, paper sign stating "No More War." What could be more American, they thought, than mixing a little dissent with the bunting and buzz of a get-out-the-vote rally headlined by the president?

Their reward: a pair of handcuffs and a strip search at the county jail.

Local authorities said Nelson and McCabe "refused to obey reasonable security restrictions," though that wouldn't necessarily explain the need for a strip search. Regardless, Nelson, who teaches history and government, insisted that she was taken away because she "had a dissenting opinion."
"

------ Explanation -------
55 year old teachers were obviously planning to paper cut and prick the president with the pin!!!! TERRORIST!!!!


----- What happpened -----
In August 2004, John Prather, a mild-mannereuse the tshirt to d math professor at Ohio University, was removed by security from a presidential event on public property because he wore a shirt that promoted John Kerry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10047-2004Aug18.html

----- Explanation -----
He was going to force the tshirt on to the president and err ..... it woudl cut off his circulation..... yup....totally a security concern.

------ What Happened -----
* On July 4, 2004, Nicole and Jeff Rank were arrested at a Bush event in West Virginia for wearing T-shirts that criticized the president. (About the same time the Ranks were being taken away in handcuffs, Bush was reminding the audience, "On this 4th of July, we confirm our love of freedom, the freedom for people to speak their minds." Gotta love irony.)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/2135.html

----- Explanantion -----

Same explanation as before, of course with 3 tshirts it woudl be faster. Also the paint on the tshirt was developed by Dems to be poisonos to Republicans.

------ What happened -----
* In July 2004, Jayson Nelson, a county supervisor in Appleton, Wis., was thrown out of a presidential event because of a pro-Kerry T-shirt. An event staffer saw the shirt, snatched the VIP ticket, and called for police. "Look at his shirt! Look at his shirt!" Nelson recalled the woman telling the Ashwaubenon Public Safety officer who answered the call. Nelson said the officer told him, "You gotta go," and sternly directed him to a Secret Service contingent that spent seven or eight minutes checking him over before ejecting him from the property.

----- Explanation -----
Same as before (strangly, poisonous tshirts...wow those seem to be really popular)

-----What Happened -----
In October 2004, three Oregon schoolteachers were removed from a Bush event and threatened with arrest for wearing t-shirts that said "Protect Our Civil Liberties."
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/2176.html

----- Explanation -----
Same as before...tshirts....poisonous. Also its been proven that Civil liberties are bad for you.

----- What Happened -----
In March 2005, three Denver residents were threatened with arrest at a Bush event because one of them had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.

----- Explanation -----
Err...the glue on the bumper sticker was toxic....the protesters were planing to pry the sticker off with their teeth, lick it, then lick Mr. Bush. Definately a security threat.

----- What Happened -----
In February 2006, Cindy Sheehan was taken into custody for wearing a T-shirt that read, "2,245 Dead ó How Many More?" to the State of the Union.

----- Explanation -----
Tshirt explanation...also since her son died in Iraq, she is obviously dangerous.

------ The bad news ------
The good news is McCabe and Nelson are suing three unnamed Secret Service agents, the Iowa State Patrol, and two county sheriff deputies who took part in their arrest. Their suit alleges that officials violated their right to free speech, assembly, and equal protection.

THAT PESKY FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!! AND ASSEMBLY and EQUAL PROTECTION !!!!! Down with it.

Also we now know that Bush is alergic to tshirts.

---

So Mr Invader, I think the explanations I came up with were pretty good, but feel free to offer alternatives.

source:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8018.html

On commies and their press conferences. (July 28, 2006 3:46 AM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
We already went through this with Cindy Sheehan. Recall even the Republican Congressman's wife with the pro-Bush (pro-War) t-shirt was removed by police or Secret Service, but wasn't arrested because she cooperated.
On commies and their press conferences. (July 30, 2006 6:26 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
Right...and about the other instances? For example a rally does NOT have a dress code.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 1, 2006 12:58 AM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
Rallies are private events, where the people hosting it obtain exclusive rights to use the property where it's held. So like it or not, people who wear anti-Bush stuff can be kicked out. It's like if Coca Cola was doing a TV commercial, and someone with a Pepsi t-shirt tried to get into the commercial.

Of all those instances, only the Ranks were arrested, and the charges were dropped and they got apologies from the city council and mayor.

Hardly Soviet-stlye oppression of dissidents.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 2, 2006 12:05 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>Rallies are private events, where the people hosting it obtain exclusive rights to use the property where it's held.

Political rallies held in a public park are private events???

I am not even sure now you know english...
Or you are just trying to redefine words, just to fit your purposes.
Have you never been to a political rally?

I hoping it the first but suspecting it is the second.


But, in good fait, lets break it down, just for the sake of argument.

An announcement is made that a President will be coming to a n outside public place in Cedar Rapids. Now mind there are no tickets sold to this and all citizens are invited to participate.
Now that is what a rally is. Now lets see if we can answer some of the objection you might have:

Q. But its a Republican rally?
A. So you are saying you need to be a card carrying memeber and those will be checked? Or you need to go through voter registration rolls and see who is who? What happens if some conservative never registered? Or chooses to stay independent. Can no democrat come?

Q. Its a private event because they are raising money there for Bush.
A. So those are called private fundraisers. They usually even sell tickets to those. And actually most of the time anyone can come and donate.

Q. I still say its a private event, and I that what I BELIEVE despite all logic.
A. The illegally arrested people filed a lawsuit. and not even the defendant in that lawsuit claim it was a private event which they violated. Also as been pointed out before, believing things does not make it true. You may stand in the middle of the street and believe you are invincible but you will still get hit by a truck.

Q. There are laws against this.
A. Um, no there is the First Ammendment which trumps the rest that protets POLITICAL SPEECH in public and in private.

Q. First Amendment is stupid!!
A. Yes I know, your reppies do not like the constitution and can not wait till Bush signs it away.

Now I hope I covered some objections you might have.
Now if you have objections to the tone I use, that just comes from watching Bush stripping away civil liberties. When he stops that, my tone will change.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 3, 2006 12:54 AM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
When your company reserves space at a public park for a barbecue, you don't have to let the general public come to your private event. In fact, usually you have to pay to rent the facilities.

When you hold a rally, you need a permit for holding a private event in a public place. And when you fill out the permit along with your application fee, you can designate whether or not it is accessible to the public or not. You don't have to pay a fee and go through legal paperwork and process to let people who you didn't invite to attend. In a sense, for the period of the time you are permitted use of that public space it is yours and not the general public's.

The First Amendment does not give Joe Protester the right to access private areas to protest. No one's civil liberties are being stripped away.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 3, 2006 12:56 AM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
By the way, if opposing the President is not tolerated as you (incorrectly) claim, and the government is spying on average Americans as you (also incorrectly) claim, how is it you get away with criticizing Bush in this forum so easily and openly? The Bush techies at Diebold that you say rigged the Ohio vote can easily track you down to your very computer and have the Secret Service haul you away.

Strangely, you're still there, typing away.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 3, 2006 3:39 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
>You don't have to pay a fee and go through legal paperwork and process to let people who you didn't invite to attend.

So if you do not process people as to who is invited are not, that means its open to the public. You fallacy lies is that you assume that a political rally held in a public park is only open to people that the organizer wants. BUT if you do not process (by tickets or such other) them how does anyone know who is invited? What qualifies who stays there and who does not.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 3, 2006 3:54 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
>Strangely, you're still there, typing away.

Have you ever studied how any dictator start squishing free speech? Nothing happens right away. Freedom is slowly chipped away at. A secret program here, a small arrest here, survaillance there (to put in a file for the future).

>The Bush techies at Diebold that you say rigged the Ohio vote can easily track you down to your very computer and have the Secret Service haul you away.

I am sure if people were not standing up to Bush they would have.

Did you hear by teh way about this new bill that Bush wants passed.
Here is the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/detainee_rights;_ylt=AqYkldIHXLiIeuVur6hg9CsD5gcF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/15176692.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation

Let me give you highlights:

----snip----
WASHINGTON - U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

A 32-page draft measure is intended to authorize the Pentagon's tribunal system, established shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks to detain and prosecute detainees captured in the war on terror. The tribunal system was thrown out last month by the Supreme Court.

Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court -- and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

....

Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said Friday he expects to take up the detainee legislation in September.

---snip---

Please pay atttention to at least two things:
broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court -- and all the rights that come with it.

Lets see what rights he woudl lose:
...barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

So if I was only accused of having a terrorist ties and arrested and put in this tribunal....I could not even look at the evidence, be barred from my own trial, and could be tortured and that adminission true or not could be used against me.

Now before you bring out the its only for terrorists meme, please read over both articles and hopefully the bill. And see how BROADLY it defines terrorst. Hell I am sure you could fit in that. More over evidence against you could be false. But you would never even see it.

see this how freedoms are chipped away. Is this the America you believe in?
On commies and their press conferences. (August 3, 2006 3:58 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
One little addition:
--snip---
The plan, which would replace a military trial system ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in June, would also allow the secretary of defense to add crimes at will to those under the military courtís jurisdiction. The two provisions would be likely to put more individuals than previously expected before military juries, officials and independent experts said.

--snip---

So one man!!! can now say what crimes are terrorist crimes and arrest you. I do nto trust Donald Rumsfeld. It does nto matter who he is!!! POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY!!!
On commies and their press conferences. (August 3, 2006 12:03 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html

Scared yet?
On commies and their press conferences. (August 7, 2006 9:57 AM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
Well, I do trust Donald Rumsfeld. But I am worried about who gets these powers in the future.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 7, 2006 11:02 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
You said very little I see.
Now I personally do not trust Rumsfeld but lets set that aside for a moment.
Lets recap.

A president of the United states submitted a proposal that would allow for one man in the government define what crime are "terrorist" crimes. That same proposal, also allows for the a US Citizen to be suspected of terrorism and to be arrested based on suspicion. Lets call this US Citizen "Invader Jim"

Now once arrested Invader Jim can be denied access to civilian courts.
He can be denied a look at evidence, he can be denied to face his accusers. He can be denied going to his own trial. If a confession is beaten out of him it will admittable in court. he can e denied a right to spedy trial, whihc of course means that it could be years while he is locked up before the trial ever happens.

Meanwhile his arrest could have been a mistake, or could have been on wrong information, or maybe it was neded because the agents needed to fill the "terrorist quota". But he has no way to even see the judge to prove his innocence.

NOW TELL ME!!!

IS THIS THE AMERICA YOU KNOW?
IS THIS THE AMERICA YOU BELIEVE IN?
DO YOU NOT THINK THIS IS STRIPPING AWAY CIVIL RIGHTS, LIKE STALIN DID in RUSSIA, BEFORE HE SENT OFF MILLIONS TO DIE IN GULAGS!!!

ALSO ANSWER ME!!! (and I mean no offense when I ask this, I just want to understand your reason for supporting a persident who does this.)

ARE YOU THIS NAIVE?
OR
ARE YOU SO WRAPPED UP IN YOUR OWN EGO THAT YOU CAN NOT ADMIT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG?
OR
CAN NOT YOU NOT SEE THAT THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL IS AN ON COMING TRAIN!!!!
OR
OR ARE YOU JUST THIS STUPID????

Please let me know on more then on sentence.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 9, 2006 2:44 AM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
It sounds pretty bad when it's described like that, but I'm not sure you're characterizing it accurately. I haven't been able to find any additional news stories on the Internet to get different/more specific details.

I don't see anything about these rules pertaining to U.S. citizens. If you show me that it does, indeed, then, yes, of course I object.

I support Bush because I believe his interest is in defending the country from the threat of terrorism.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 9, 2006 8:40 PM)
Posted by: Good Will
>I haven't been able to find any additional news stories on the Internet to get different/more specific details.

I posted the 3 links. Also if you just look on google news just a bit you will find a nice number of articles on it. I did. I do not know where you searched.

>I don't see anything about these rules pertaining to U.S. citizens.
This talks about enemy combatants. Bush have said before that US citizens can be enemy combatants. Look up Padilla case, a US citizen, designated as enemy combatant, held in military brig by the Bush Administration.

>If you show me that it does, indeed, then, yes, of course I object.
Actions speak. Words lie!!! How do you object. If you see all this and do nothing that you are in fact a coward, because if you believe in the Constitution and this great country and let this happen, I have no other word for you. I always hear that conservatives are for strict constitutionists!!!! Well are you or are you not?

>I support Bush because I believe his interest is in defending the country from the threat of terrorism.

That is an extremely general and unsupported statement.
How exactly is he defendign thsi country from threat of terrorism.
Is it by turning Iraq into a breeding ground of terrorists? When was the last time he paid attention to Israel/Palestine situation. Did you hear about how Taliban is coming back more and more into Afganistan? Or that that the unit of CIA that was focused on catching Usama bin Laden was disbanded. Or by pissing off our allies? Or by making sure that a a rogue NUCLEAR state who has capability of firing missiles 800 miles is nto a threat (hint: North Korea)? Is he protecting us by gutting emergency response agency (dude!!! Michael Brown's job was supervising Arabian Horses before!!! and he was fired from that). Or the fact that ports are being handed over to Arab countries? Or border security (watch this, this is fun: ( http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/08/lou-dobbs-on-bushs-over-exaggeration-on-his-border-promises/ )

Please describe to me with facts how you think that pathetic lil man with delusions of grandeur of being a war president is protecting us?

PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU THINK HE HAS DONE ANYTHING AGAINST TERRORISM? Except of course rhetoric.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 15, 2006 1:45 AM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
Yes, it was a general statement. If I tell someone I like cheese, I usually don't provide documentation.

Regarding the three links you provided, the Yahoo one didn't work and the Miami story comes from the Washington Post Service. And the Washington Post story comes from...

What he's done against terrorism, huh? Taken out Saddam, who supported terrorism in many ways already discussed ad nauseum. Continued our missile defense program, which has had some had some impressive results lately. There's the NSA wiretapping program that intercepted the terrorist group's communications, which we provided to Britain to foil the latest plot. Etc. Etc.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 15, 2006 10:47 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
Have you noticed that usually when I make an argument I present some links to back it up. You on the other hand just say things and claim they are evidence. Very fox "newsie" of you but no dice.

>Yes, it was a general statement. If I tell someone I like cheese, I usually don't provide documentation

Right. Except it has been well documented WHY people like cheese.
Here is some history on that. Back in the day when food were nowhere near everywhere as it is today, cheese was a good way to store food in highly nutritious, long lasting form (given the lack of refrigeration). So people who developed liking for cheese (your and my ancestors) had a better chance of survival.

>Taken out Saddam, who supported terrorism in many ways already discussed ad nauseum.

Right, you said things for which you provided no proof back then too. Ok repeat after me!!
1. Saddam had no WMDs (even Bush now admitted that).
2. All of the Hijackers came from Saudi Arabia (do you need proof of that?)
3. Al Queda had no links to Iraq at that time. (tons of proof of that, if you just spent 5 minutes on that)
4. NOW, Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists. And that does nto make us safer.

>Continued our missile defense program, which has had some had some impressive results lately.

What test firings of which 50% are misses?
Terrorist do not have ICBMs in any great number for us to have the necessity for this.

>There's the NSA wiretapping program that intercepted the terrorist group's communications, which we provided to Britain to foil the latest plot.
Right....prove that....


In ANY case!!!
I showed news stories about Bush administration submitting a draft of proposed legistlation. The Bush Admin denied none of that. The draft speaks of ripping out teh civil liberties out of every AMERICAN. AND YOU talk about cheese and liking BUSH!!! What kind of an american are you? George Washington is spinning in his grave I am sure.
On commies and their press conferences. (August 15, 2006 4:39 PM)
Posted by: Invader Jim
This is going nowhere.

I've provided the proof already, time and time again on different things, and you just dismiss it because it contradicts what you want to believe. I am not going to do it every time for you.

Here's a few links on Saddam's WMDs. Sorry, I wasn't actually there in Iraq getting my photo taken next to the bio agents and shells.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/06/01&ID=Ar00801
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

On Saddam's terror ties:
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html

Regarding missile defense, you just talked about North Korea launching missiles, and now MD isn't important? The test firings are getting much better, such that they feel it is worth deploying in Japan. The tests will continue and they will get better. I am amazed how liberals will insist upon keeping government programs that will fail for thirty years straight, but when it comes to missile defense, which is just in testing stages, it's lack of perfection make it not worth having at all. Nevertheless, you go to their web site and you see a string of successful tests:
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html

Regarding the NSA thing, okay, I'll withdraw that for now, since the intercepted communications intelligence we provided London has not been verified as from the NSA's specific program. It's clearly from some spying operation, though:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
On commies and their press conferences. (September 12, 2006 11:57 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
But you of course hear that Bush admitted there were no WMDs right?

http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/PR2004/NS-07-12-04.html
On commies and their press conferences. (September 21, 2006 10:04 PM)
Posted by: Logipundit
So what? He said they hadn't found stockpiles...but that was as of Mid-2004...So are you saying they haven't found 500 munitions since then including sarin gas and that this guy was lying about things being transported to Syria.

OH by the way...the prevailing moronic dictator comparison for Bush is Hitler, not Stalin. You need to get that straight...because it gets confusing when all of the other left-wing nut jobs are calling him Hitler. I mean...compare him to an evil dictator who murdered millions of people but AT LEAST accuse him of being a racist fascist at the same time.
On commies and their press conferences. (September 22, 2006 12:06 AM)
Posted by: Good Will
>this guy was lying about things being transported to Syria.
Corroborate that please.

Both Hitler and Stalin slowly destroyed civil rights.
The comparisson applies.

Post a reply

Subject:

Message:

Username: Password:
Forgot your username/password?
If you haven't already, register now.