First Amendment Rights too much for Bush Administration?

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by banana
No, I don't think so, Rude.


. Something I wish Ripsnort would give a try.

Ah, there it is, when all else fails and your arguement lost...pot shot.

banana, to coin a phrase from President Reagan... "Well, there you go again".

[Dowding]

Something I wish Ripsnort would give a try.

A definition of 'forlorn hope', I believe.

His last 'I am rubber..." post is indicative of the Ripsnort style, oozing originality and laisez-faire wit.

[Wanker]

There is nothing new or unique about the situation described in your link. The secret service folks in charge of the presidents security (no matter what party the president is in) have an obligation to protect him. Given the situation in the world why is it surprising that they should try to isolate the president from protesters?

Batz, wouldn't it be smarter for a would-be assassin to hide amongst the sheep(supporters), instead of the wolves(protesters)?

In my opinion, it is unconstitutional to prevent me from holding a sign of protest up while the president speaks in a public place, as long as I do it peacefully, and don't try to shout him down or something as disruptive. No matter who is president.

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ah, there it is, when all else fails and your arguement lost...pot shot.

banana, to coin a phrase from President Reagan... "Well, there you go again".

Hey Rip, I'm just trying to get you to argue against me on the same topic, not deflecting the topic to something else.

[john9001]

<<>>>

"million man march" in DC.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by banana
Hey Rip, I'm just trying to get you to argue against me on the same topic, not deflecting the topic to something else.

My interest was to see if you'd care (or did care in 1997) about THIS issue if (when) your man was in the house? I'm assuming that answer is no, after your aforementioned replies.

[Wanker]

Rip, count how many times I say in this thread "No matter who is president" or "any president".

Thank you, now please proceed with your arguments.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by banana
Rip, count how many times I say in this thread "No matter who is president" or "any president".

Thank you, now please proceed with your arguments.

So you DID make a stink when Clinton did the same, without ACLU supporting the defendants.  Good for you!  Can you link something for me?

[Rude]

Originally posted by banana
No, I don't think so, Rude.



Seems pretty clear to me, but then again I'm a firm believer in letting my opponents state their opinions, and trying to refute their arguments with logic and common sense. Something I wish Ripsnort would give a try.

Are you a firm believer in a person exercising their first ammendment right to free speech when thru that action, the rights of others are trampled?

Even within the democratic parties presidential debates, free speechers were disruptive to the debate proceedings.

Some are like children...they want what they want, when they want it...anything less and they call the ACLU. Folks ARE free to speak their minds....just not when thru that speech they abuse the rights of others to assemble.

[Wanker]

Ripsnort, I think I speak for all Americans on this BBS when I say...


Link this!







Sorry, you set me up so well.

[Dowding]

banana appears to be arguing that the right to protest is the issue at stake. Whether or not he personally did at some point in the past is completely irrelevant - he wants to preserve the right to do so in the future.

Now think about that paragraph, Ripsnort. Think about it hard.

[Batz]

You assume that the "supporters" for the most part are unchecked. In my experience "supporters" dont show up randomly and for the most part are orchestrated.

Bush was in Jacksonville last week the list of "supporters" was made in advance. How times did you see Monica in the front row of Clinton "supporters". You dont think she just happened to be there? These things are mostly staged.

You need to look into laws surrounding public assembly. They arent as clear as you try to portray. In some states "known gang members" cant congregate together. To stage marches or  protests etc you need to abide by local ordinances.

The government has set rules on "free speech", it always has. But like the other guys here I wonder why its "Bush" thats got the ACLU or yourself so "outraged".

In honesty I dont see where moving them to a seperate area violated any of their rights. They do the same thing with the kkk types, abortion protesters etc. Is the ACLU gonna take up these causes? How about yourself? They can still scream and yell and wave their placards.

They werent their to have discussion with Bush, they were their to make a schene and get noticed by reporters. They got moved out of they way and now they go to the ACLU to help stir up the publicity they missed out on.

They arent going win in court.

So imo its a whole lot about nothing.

[Wanker]

Are you a firm believer in a person exercising their first ammendment right to free speech when thru that action, the rights of others are trampled?

No, I am not. As I have said before, I believe that a person protesting during a presidential speech should do so quietly and peacefully through use of a sign.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Dowding
banana appears to be arguing that the right to protest is the issue at stake. Whether or not he personally did at some point in the past is completely irrelevant - he wants to preserve the right to do so in the future.

Now think about that paragraph, Ripsnort. Think about it hard.

You and banana seem to be assuming that that right has been denied. Allegations by the ACLU don't constitute proof in my opinion.

[Sikboy]

Did congress pass a law while I wasn't watching?

-Sik