Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on November 19, 2003, 07:31:19 AM

Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 19, 2003, 07:31:19 AM
None of the news services are reporting numbers of Anti-Shower protesters. The one number I heard was "a Smattering".

So what happened? I heard there was going to be 100,000 screaming non-shaven women outside Buckingham palace.

Someone chase them away with job applications?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dowding on November 19, 2003, 07:39:13 AM
Perhaps the 5 million quid of tax payers money being spent on the security has had some effect.

I find it laughable that of all the presidents, all the great men that have resided in the White House since the last State Visit in 1918 (Woodrow Wilson), they chose a worthless dolt like George W Bush to be recipient of that honour and stay inside the palace. What happened to Roosevelt's invite for instance?

What a shrecking disgrace. As a Briton, I'm ashamed of the fact he receives that prestigious honour over so many more worthy men. The monarchy is guilty of 80 years of serial stupidity and this is proof positive of that fact.

But then again, this is probably cynical political expediency at work.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 19, 2003, 07:41:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
Perhaps the 5 million quid of tax payers money being spent on the security has had some effect.

I find it laughable that of all the presidents, all the great men that have resided in the White House since the last State Visit in 1918 (Woodrow Wilson), they chose a worthless dolt like George W Bush to be recipient of that honour and stay inside the palace. What happened to Roosevelt's invite for instance?

What a shrecking disgrace. As a Briton, I'm ashamed of the fact he receives that prestigious honour over so many more worthy men. The monarchy is guilty of 80 years of serial stupidity and this is proof positive of that fact.



AHAHAHHAHA!!!!

Dubya is sleeping in buckingham palace!

:D :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: lazs2 on November 19, 2003, 07:54:02 AM
might cut down on the inbreeding.
lazs
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Ripsnort on November 19, 2003, 07:59:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
might cut down on the inbreeding.
lazs


Does this mean teeth will straighten out?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: straffo on November 19, 2003, 08:01:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
might cut down on the inbreeding.
lazs


having a gay experience with Charles won't change that :D
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Naso on November 19, 2003, 08:01:31 AM
What a disgusting monster will come out!!

An hybryd between an Horse and a Chimpatze!!

Bleach.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dowding on November 19, 2003, 08:34:58 AM
Let's hope it has the brains of Charlie though... the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Not only would the hybrid be ugly, it would be confounded by the mere sight of bread-like snacks. The humanity!
Title: Re: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 08:55:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
So what happened? I heard there was going to be 100,000 screaming non-shaven women outside Buckingham palace.


US Media not covering it.... but European media is showing it.

Wonder why US media is choosing to filter out the protests....

"And there were more as the band of the Grenadier Guards and the Corps of the Drums of the Battalion played the Star Spangled Banner. "

But for all the shouts of "go home" during the anthem , there were as many claps at the end from others in the good-natured crowd.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3283373.stm

Remember every where Bush goes... protestors are not allowed to be with in miles... the secret service is known for illegally arresting lawful protestors.

In fact he's not giving his speech in front of Parliamant... because they are mostly Anti-Bush... and they are known for their interrupting heckles and boos....

 
GEORGE Bush was last night branded chicken for scrapping his speech to Parliament because he feared being heckled by anti-war MPs.

Brrrrrooock! He can have other people killed by his war mongering henchmen... but he's a pus-sy when it comes to speaking infront of people who don't agree with him.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid%3D13631331_method%3Dfull_siteid%3D50143_headline%3D-BUSH-PULLS-OUT-OF-SPEECH-TO-MPS-name_page.html
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dowding on November 19, 2003, 08:58:28 AM
All I can say is that Gore must have been a complete loser for this guy to have been the 'best man for the job'.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: lazs2 on November 19, 2003, 09:03:00 AM
so all the brits loved him and that is what is pissing off the little liberals dowding and darned nexus?   you can allmost feel the acid from their vitriol.   feels like..... warm rain.

lazs
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dago on November 19, 2003, 09:03:16 AM
Quote
Dubya is sleeping in buckingham palace!
 


He is taking a dump there too, nothing like pinching off a loaf in the Queens crapper.

dago
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Ripsnort on November 19, 2003, 09:03:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
All I can say is that Gore must have been a complete loser for this guy to have been the 'best man for the job'.


Aye, said it before election 2000, and saying it again, it was a "hold your nose" election year..but Bush has done an outstanding job by helping at bringing our economy back (tax cuts) and post-9/11 action. Its recently that his administration has been failing IMO.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dago on November 19, 2003, 09:07:22 AM
Quote
Remember every where Bush goes... protestors are not allowed to be with in miles... the secret service is known for illegally arresting lawful protestors


Oh sure, of course the Secret Service just fields armies of goons, thousands of them everywhere and in every country the President goes too.  Nexus, you write fecal matter that is so less than smart and less than acceptable as to make me convinced you are just a complete less than bright politically incorrect scoundrel who might be mentally challenged.


dago
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Virage on November 19, 2003, 09:11:18 AM
The protest march is scheduled for Thursday.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dowding on November 19, 2003, 09:12:23 AM
'All the Brits loved him'? That's a good one, lazs.

This chimp of a man doesn't have the balls to face an elected house of representatives in perhaps the only country in the world giving him any support. :rofl
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dowding on November 19, 2003, 09:14:30 AM
Quote
Oh sure, of course the Secret Service just fields armies of goons, thousands of them everywhere and in every country the President goes too.


They don't need to. The British police has fielded 20,000 police a large proportion of which are armed and no doubt plenty of British secret service personnel at cost to the British tax payer. Wonderful arrangement, eh?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 09:26:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dago
Oh sure, of course the Secret Service just fields armies of goons, thousands of them everywhere and in every country the President goes too.  Nexus, you write shxt that is so stupid and asnine as to make me convinced you are just a complete fxcking idiot.
dago


You're out of touch Dago... I guess that would make you the idiot for not knowing...

ACLU is suing the Secret Service and Dubya for violation of Civil Rights....

Several Courts have cited the Secret Service for Civil rights violations already...

You want the facts... here they are...

"protestor Brett Bursey and the press, police officers arrested Mr. Bursey for standing with thousands of Republicans welcoming the President at a Columbia, South Carolina airport because Mr. Bursey refused to change or put down his sign. Mr. Bursey reports he was told that if he wanted to protest the President, he would have to go to the designated protest site half a mile away near a highway and outside the sight and hearing of the President. "It's the content of your sign," officials said."

http://www.waifsandstrays.org/pers/archives/000162.html

ACLU lawsuit:
http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=13694&c=86&MX=959&H=0

here are the incidents for your stupidity...

Phoenix, Arizona
On September 27, 2002, President Bush came to the downtown Civic Center for a fund-raising dinner for two local candidates.  A coalition of groups opposed to a variety of the President’s policies, consisting of approximately 1,500 people, negotiated with the local police for a demonstration permit.  Phoenix police advised the protesters that the President had requested a federal protection zone.  These protesters were required to stand across the street from the Civic Center.  People carrying signs supporting the President’s policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to stand closer.  Eleanor Eisenberg, director of the local ACLU, was present as a legal observer.  When mounted police in riot gear charged into the crowd without warning, Eisenberg, who was across the street taking photos, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The charges were later dropped.  

Stockton, California
On August 23, 2002, at an appearance in a local park to support a Republican gubernatorial candidate, protesters were ordered behind a row of large, Greyhound-sized buses, which placed them out of sight and earshot of their intended audience.  They were advised that if they went to the other side of the buses, a location visible to those attending the event, they would be arrested.  People who carried signs supporting the President’s policies and spectators not visibly expressing any views were allowed to gather in front of the buses, where event attendees could see them.  Local police told the protesters that the decision to force them behind the buses had been made by the Secret Service.

Evansville, Indiana
On February 6, 2002, Vice President Cheney was scheduled to appear at the local Civic Center.  John Blair, a local activist, walked back and forth on the sidewalk across the street from the Civic Center carrying a sign reading “Cheney - 19th C. Energy Man.”  When Blair stopped walking, he was ordered to move to a “protest zone” more than a block away from the Civic Center.  When he refused to do so, he was arrested.  Spectators or passers-by who did not express any views about the Vice President’s policies were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the Civic Center. Blair, represented by the ACLU, successfully challenged the arrest.  But the lawsuit remains in force because the city has refused to acknowledge that it had no right to ignore Blair’s constitutional rights.

Kalamazoo, Michigan
At President Bush’s appearance at Western Michigan University on March 27, 2001, a protester was carrying a sign sarcastically commenting on the prior Presidential election (“Welcome Governor Bush”).   A Western Michigan policeman ordered him to go to a “protest zone” behind an athletic building located 150-200 yards from the parade route.  After the protestor was ordered to move, several hundred people who were not carrying signs congregated in the area where the lone protester had stood and were allowed to remain there.  The protest zone was located so that people sent there could not be seen by the President or his motorcade.  When the protester refused to enter the protest zone, but insisted on standing where other people had been allowed to gather, he was arrested.   Local police testified at his trial that the decisions had been made by the Secret Service.

St. Louis, Missouri
On November 4, 2002, one day before Election Day, the President came to the St. Charles Family Arena.  Two protesters carrying signs critical of the President’s policy on Iraq were ordered into a “protest zone” approximately one-quarter mile away, a location completely out of sight of the building.  When the protesters refused, they were arrested.  Meanwhile, protesters carrying signs supporting Republican candidates in the election were not ordered into the protest zone, were allowed closer to the President, and were not arrested.

On January 22, 2003, President Bush came to town to announce an economic plan.  Protesters carrying signs opposing the economic plan and criticizing the President’s foreign policy were sent to a “protest zone” located in a public park, three blocks away and down an embankment from where the President was speaking.  Neither people attending the event nor people in the motorcade could see the protesters in the protest zone.  One protester was arrested for refusing to enter the protest zone.  Standing near the location where the protester was arrested was a group of people who were not asked to move, including a woman who carried a sign reading, “We Love You President Bush.”  She was neither ordered into the protest zone nor arrested.  Local police told the arrested protester that they were acting at the direction of the Secret Service.

Trenton, New Jersey
On September 22, 2002, the President arrived to speak at a fundraiser for a U.S. Representative at the Sovereign Bank Arena.  There were 200-300 protesters who sought to protest around issues such as the war in Iraq and prescription drug policies.  They were told that they had to go to a protest zone that was set up in Parking Lot 5 of the arena, which is on the other side of a double-divided four-lane highway with barricades in the middle and high wire on both sides.  Some of the protesters walked around to the front of the arena where they observed pro-Bush demonstrators standing.  Protesters were told that the local police had to consult the Secret Service about the location of the protest zone.

Albuquerque, New Mexico
On April 29, 2002, the President came to a somewhat isolated hotel in town to attend a fund-raising luncheon for a local member of Congress.  Protesters opposed to the policies of the President, many carrying signs opposing the anticipated war in Iraq, were sent to a “protest zone” across the street from the hotel where the President was speaking.  People who supported the policies of the President were allowed to be closer to the hotel.  Other people were allowed free access to the hotel.

Neville Island, Pennsylvania
On September 2, 2002, protesters were sent to a “designated free speech zone” located on a large baseball field located one-third of a mile away from where President Bush was speaking.  Only people carrying signs critical of the President were required to enter and remain. Many people carrying signs supporting the President and his policies were allowed to stand alongside the motorcade route right up to where the President was speaking.  But when retired steelworker Bill Neel refused to enter the protest zone and insisted on being allowed to stand where the President’s supporters were standing, he was arrested for disorderly conduct and detained until the President had departed.  The ACLU of Greater Pittsburgh represented Neel and had all charges against him dismissed. Local police testified at his trial that the security policies, including the protest zone location, were dictated by the Secret Service.

Columbia, South Carolina
On October 24, 2002, the President was scheduled to arrive at the Columbia airport.  One protester, Brett Bursey, was carrying a sign opposed to the policies of the President two hundred yards from the hangar where the President’s plane was to arrive.   He was ordered to a protest zone over a half-mile from that location.  Several hundred protesters with signs that supported the policies of the President were allowed to stand closer to the hangar.  When Bursey insisted on being allowed to remain where other members of the public stood, he was arrested on state and federal criminal charges.  In May 2003, a group of 11 Congressmen urged Attorney General Ashcroft to drop the charges, saying that the government’s prosecution of Bursey was a mistake “and is in fact a threat to the freedom of expression we should all be defending.” To read the letter, go to http://www.house.gov/frank/scprotester2003.html

There's more... read the links.

It's been in the news... even FoxNews.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Rude on November 19, 2003, 09:31:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
They don't need to. The British police has fielded 20,000 police a large proportion of which are armed and no doubt plenty of British secret service personnel at cost to the British tax payer. Wonderful arrangement, eh?


Bush loves the Brits....only country with the balls to do whats right.

Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 09:31:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
so all the brits loved him and that is what is pissing off the little liberals dowding and darned nexus?   you can allmost feel the acid from their vitriol.   feels like..... warm rain.

lazs


Lazs do you live in a bottle of farts?

The Majority of Brits do NOT agree with Bush and Tony Blair.

Blair is under heavy opposition in Britain and will most likely not get re-elected.

Man are you neo-cons frothing at the mouth deluded zealots even when faced with irrefutable facts.

Brown shirts suit you guys well.... when are you handing out the Jack boots?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Ripsnort on November 19, 2003, 09:45:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DmdNexus

Brown shirts suit you guys well.... when are you handing out the Jack boots?


You talking to yourself again Nexus?

Quote
I'm right next to the Pope! Sheesh!

Economic Left/Right: 2.00
Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.23



You're further right than Lazs! LOL!

Oh, and the ACLU has NO political affiliations or interests, do they? :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 09:50:59 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Oh, and the ACLU has NO political affiliations or interests, do they? :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl


Everyone has political affiliations... so what. :aok

I admit I'm some time's a rigth winger...I even voted for Reagan - But only once! Jack Anderson was a little too radical.

At least the ACLU isn't goose stepping on people's freedom of speech like the Bush Administration is doing.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Swager on November 19, 2003, 09:51:12 AM
IF he is in UK for more than 4 days, they have to keep him, right?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Ripsnort on November 19, 2003, 09:52:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Everyone has political affiliations... so what. :aok

I admit I'm some time's a rigth winger...I even voted for Reagan - But only once! Jack Anderson was a little too radical.

At least the ACLU isn't goose stepping on people's freedom of speech like the Bush Administration is doing.


That was John Anderson. I voted for him in 1980 ;)

No, the ACLU is doing the Stalin Stroll, not the goose step.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 19, 2003, 10:18:02 AM
Rip-

Could you do me a favor and not quote Nexus in your replies.

I caught a glimpse of his last purge and now feel I should fashion a tin foil hat for myself.

Thanks in advance!
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 10:20:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
Could you do me a favor and not quote Nexus in your replies.

I caught a glimpse of his last purge and now feel I should fashion a tin foil hat for myself.


Poor Muckmaw... he want's to be a monkey with his hands over his eyes and fingers in his ears.

He doesn't have the balls to listen to people who disagree with him... very much like that chimpanze G Dubya!
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 10:22:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
That was John Anderson. I voted for him in 1980 ;)

No, the ACLU is doing the Stalin Stroll, not the goose step.


You are correct sir... my memory failed me... J. Anderson. :aok
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 19, 2003, 10:31:24 AM
[Pee-wee Herman Mode on]

WHA?

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!

LALALALALALALALLALALALALAL

[Pee-wee Herman Mode off]

I'm such an sweet child sometimes.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 10:43:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
I'm such an sweet child sometimes.


for once I agree with you! :rofl
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dago on November 19, 2003, 11:22:30 AM
Let see Nexus, first you post this:

Quote
Remember every where Bush goes... protestors are not allowed to be with in miles... the secret service is known for illegally arresting lawful protestors.


For proof, you offer this:

Quote
These protesters were required to stand across the street from the Civic Center.


and

Quote
protesters were ordered behind a row of large, Greyhound-sized buses, which placed them out of sight and earshot of their intended audience.


and

Quote
[a local activist, walked back and forth on the sidewalk across the street from the Civic Center carrying a sign reading “Cheney - 19th C. Energy Man.” When Blair stopped walking, he was ordered to move to a “protest zone” more than a block away from the Civic Center.   passers-by who did not express any views about the Vice President’s policies were allowed to walk on the sidewalk in front of the Civic Center


Seems simple, keep walking, even if protesting,  you are fine, if you want to stop and stand there, you gotta move on,  yeah, regular Nazi tactics

and

Quote
A Western Michigan policeman ordered him to go to a “protest zone” behind an athletic building located 150-200 yards from the parade route.



Sorry Nexus, but thanks for showing the fallacy of your orignal statement yourself:

Quote
protestors are not allowed to be with in miles...


Sure sounds like they are "within  miles" to me.

A couple of facts to consider:

a) They are allowed to protest
b) They aren't allowed to protest in a manner that prevents those who actually want to hear the President from doing so (imagine that, being forced to be considerate and not rude?)
c) Most of them want publicity more than anything else, and if the press cares to put them on, they can easily film or photograph them if they want to
d) Despite what James Carville thinks, preventing someone from completing a sentance by rudely interrupting does not make you a winner in an arguement, nor does it make you right.  

I strongly believe everyone has a right, and it could be said an obligation to protest policies you dont agree with, but there has to be limits on how, when and where these protests are carried out.  The protesters as a rule want to rudely disrupt speeches and appearances, earning scorn and disrespect from those they might wish to influence.  If they want be heard, find the proper forums.


And you are still a Downs Syndrome type.   :rofl



dago
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: lord dolf vader on November 19, 2003, 11:36:32 AM
you just argued down the right of a man to stand on a public street with a sign.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 11:40:00 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dago
And you are still a tard.   :rofl


You're still a deluded retard and a Republican tuwrd eater.... :aok
Not only to do you lack knowledge of the law... your attempts to nitpick at the facts are pathetic.

"miles" is an exageration... I think any moron reading that would know that it was for emphasis and not to be taken literally.... well ok you're the moron who makes the exception.

Several of the cases I sited have gone to court and in each the Judge agreed with the Protestor... the Secret Service can not segregate Bush supporters, Anti-Bush protestors, and people who just don't express any opinion.

Here's an example for you, though I doubt your simple mind would understand the implications of this... nevertheless... I still have hope something will get through:

A man arrested during President Bush's recent visit to Pittsburgh got his protest sign back, and a justice who dismissed the charges against him also gave police a scolding over the incident.

District Justice Shirley Rowe Trkula dismissed a disorderly conduct charge against Bill Neel, 65, of Butler, Pa., and told Allegheny County police that they "went a little too far" in trying to curb protests, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported on its Web site yesterday.

Police testified that Neel was arrested after refusing to enter a fenced area, designated as a free-speech area, during Bush's Labor Day visit to Neville Island, 10 miles northwest of Pittsburgh.

County police detective Thomas Ianachione testified that Neel was polite and never used foul language.

Trkula said Neel had a right to express his views and returned his sign, which said, "The Bush family must surely love the poor — they've made so many of them."

Neel, who was defended by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the ruling was a victory for the Constitution.

"Sure, the president should be safe. But I don't think arrests like this help," he said.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17197

Here's a judge requesting information from the Secret Service:
I guess, in your opinion this federal judge is a TARD also.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/observer/news/local/states/south_carolina/counties/york/6644819.htm
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dago on November 19, 2003, 12:18:03 PM
Quote
District Justice Shirley Rowe Trkula


Woman shouldnt be judges.  


ACLU - bunch of commies.


Seriously, I agree that goons like the Secret Service can easily get carried away and go to far.  Just about every cop carrying a badge and a gun let it go to their head and think they are GOD.

I am a firm believer in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and I believe in protecting those rights including the right of protest.  BUT, I do also believe as I eluded that way too many of the "Protestors" are just stirring the pot, and do so in a way that prevents those citizens who want to hear the President, or others talk.  Nobodys right to protest should override the Presidents right to give an address to an assembly of people who want to hear it.

To ban protests, to arrest those of differant views smacks of exactly the type of government we say we are opposed to.  To deny civil liberties is unacceptable.  But, being held to a high standard, to demand respect and consideration works both ways.

As  you illustrated, many of the actions taken by the Secret Service were not appropriate or even legal, and our court system has rule so.  I guess in the long run, the system works.  People dont like what the President is doing, write letters to the newspapers or Congresmen, or the White House itself, let them run for office or work for a candidate they agree with.  I think they should just stop short of attempting to disrupt an appearance by the President.  I can pretty much guarantee that a much larger number of people will be gathered at any place the President is going to give a speech or make an appearance who want to see and hear him than those who want to protest.  I just dont agree that the protestors have the right to ruin the appearance for so many..  

There are proper forums and proper ways to go about things, that aint one of them.


unconventional believers in communism


dago
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 01:06:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dago
Woman shouldnt be judges.  
dago


LOL

Commies?

These people weren't disrupting Bush's speech....
Many of them were quietly holding signs which had their message on it.....

Pro bush supports are allowed to Cheer..

Why aren't anti-Bush protestors allowed to boo?

Bush has a PA system... the protestors all they have are their voices.

That is American liberty. If Bush has the right to speek and have his support clap and cheer at a public location... then protestors are allowed to show up and boo.

Any illegal activity... such as throwing objects, assault, etc... of course is not legal free speach but criminal.

Lafayette park is right behind the White House and is in view of the Oval office's window, Nixon was sitting there one day stewing over the war protesters that were sitting in the park and holding up their anti-war signs. This irritated him to no end, until he finally asked the Secret Service to go out there and get those people's names and see if any of them are wanted for any crimes and to arrest them.

Fortunately, the SS did not comply with this direct order from their commander and chief, because they knew that would be illegal.

The people have the right to protest and have their protests seen by the media and their elected officials.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dago on November 19, 2003, 01:30:05 PM
Quote
The people have the right to protest and have their protests seen by the media and their elected officials.


Ahhh, most of them are drug addled, unwashed filthy stinking hippies.  Send em all to a country just east of England, they will fit in there.


They have a right to protest, within the limits of the law I suppose.  I will only agree if they protest about something I dont like of course.   Let them protest about affirmitive action, about women demanding equal rights  (as if), about the unfair rulings courts have used to destroy men in divorce and child custody cases and I am right there with them.

Unconventional thinking hippies,  they should be hosed down by firetrucks that have soapy water in their tanks.

dago
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Gixer on November 19, 2003, 02:20:08 PM
The main protest is planned for Thursday. Though Bush will either be out of town that day or hunkering down somewhere surrounded by his massive security force.



...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Saurdaukar on November 19, 2003, 02:22:55 PM
Watched the speach this morning - not a bad one.  Im a Bush supporter and even I cringe when he speaks in public.

In any event - they had a few 'Goth' looking Brits on CNN waving some signs and some dolt had put red food coloring in  on of the fountains of Trafalgar Square - but thats it as far as I could see.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Tumor on November 19, 2003, 02:35:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
Perhaps the 5 million quid of tax payers money being spent on the security has had some effect.

I find it laughable that of all the presidents, all the great men that have resided in the White House since the last State Visit in 1918 (Woodrow Wilson), they chose a worthless dolt like George W Bush to be recipient of that honour and stay inside the palace. What happened to Roosevelt's invite for instance?

What a shrecking disgrace. As a Briton, I'm ashamed of the fact he receives that prestigious honour over so many more worthy men. The monarchy is guilty of 80 years of serial stupidity and this is proof positive of that fact.

But then again, this is probably cynical political expediency at work.


Suck on it Dowdink ;D
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Tumor on November 19, 2003, 02:46:51 PM
Nexus

  Every time you hit reply in this forum... you become a bigger, louder, ridikulus, trolling, definition of a tardling doofus.

Speak to the hand Sir Dorksalot.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 03:00:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Tumor
Nexus

  Every time you hit reply in this forum... you become a bigger, louder, ridikulus, trolling, definition of a tardling doofus.

Speak to the hand Sir Dorksalot.


If my words irritate the likes of you... I take great pleasure in that.  :aok

Because... I guess.. you're "Tardiness" speaks for it's self with your illegible spew...

You speak like a little kid: "doofus", "Tardling"... "Dorksalot"

Did you learn these in the sandbox while you were playing with your own turds?

I suppose, I should be insulted by these words coming from a mentally retarded chimpanze like your self who cann't even spell the insults he's typing. :lol

Strangly... I'm not.

You don't even have a comment to make about the subject matter... which is reflection of your lack of intelligence.

Back to school with you little girl. :rofl

learn some new words.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 03:01:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Tumor
Suck on it Dowdink ;D


You're on a roll tonight... :lol
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Skuzzy on November 19, 2003, 03:02:17 PM
Nexus, Tumor, Dago, you have 24 hours to clean up the posts in this thread.  Personal attacks, abusive language and major attempts to circumvent the language filter will not be tolerated.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 03:05:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Nexus, Tumor, you have 24 hours to clean up the posts in this thread.  Personal attacks, abusive language and major attempts to circumvent the laguage filter will not be tolerated.

works for me... I'm not the one that starts the ad hominen attacks.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: kappa on November 19, 2003, 03:23:50 PM
Dago wrote:
Ahhh, most of them are drug addled, unwashed filthy stinking hippies. Send em all to France, they will fit in there.


Jus like that Rush Limbought dude......  damn druggies.........

k
AoM
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Tumor on November 19, 2003, 03:41:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Nexus, Tumor, Dago, you have 24 hours to clean up the posts in this thread.  Personal attacks, abusive language and major attempts to circumvent the language filter will not be tolerated.


I'm SOOOOOOORRRRRY Nex.

Statement to Dowding stands. Ban me if you will but I take offense to personal attacks on my President from non-citizens.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Otto on November 19, 2003, 03:54:32 PM
All I saw were a bunch of 60-year-old Marxist with “Hands off Cuba” signs.  They really need to get out more often.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dago on November 19, 2003, 04:04:18 PM
I stand with Tumor on this one, I reserve the right to respond to those attacking my country or it's leader.  

 better not say that, about how this board is going

 better not say that either, about preferences for money over pride in country

sure better not include that one about some of the posters on this forum


Dago

a kinder, more gentle, touchy feely, respectful of everyone, type of guy.   :rofl
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Tumor on November 19, 2003, 04:08:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dago
I stand with Tumor on this one, I reserve the right to respond to those attacking my country or it's leader.  

 better not say that, about how this board is going

 better not say that either, about preferences for money over pride in country

sure better not include that one about some of the posters on this forum


Dago

a kinder, more gentle, touchy feely, respectful of everyone, type of guy.   :rofl


I LOVE YOU MAN! :lol
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Saurdaukar on November 19, 2003, 04:10:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DmdNexus
works for me... I'm not the one that starts the ad hominen attacks.


LOL
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Hortlund on November 19, 2003, 04:11:12 PM
I like Bush, alot. For lots of reasons. The three biggest reasons right now though, are

1) He causes liberals to go insane, as dmdnexus, dowding, elfenwolf, lord dolf et al proves over and over again. Actually I think the USSS should take a look at the RL person behind dmdnexus, because that guy cannot be sane, and his hatred of Bush and his fixation with him should prolly earn him a watchful eye from them. Sooo if the secret echelon, NSA watchers of the internet are reading this BB, send the black choppers to him *points at dmdnexus*

2) He is funny. Did you read the speech he made in England? It was a very good speech, and I particularily liked this part

It was pointed out to me that the last noted American to visit London stayed in a glass box dangling over the Thames.

A few might have been happy to provide similar arrangements for me.


3) I think I'll let old Teddy Roosvelt do the talking for me here:
”It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Now I dont expect dowding, nexus, vader, elf and the rest of the freak show to understand reason nr 3. But then again, they have proved time and time again that they are incapable of anything really...but venom-spewing...

:aok
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: DmdNexus on November 19, 2003, 04:26:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Hortlund
3) I think I'll let old Teddy Roosvelt do the talking for me here:
”It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
:aok


Don't even compare Bush to TR... TR actually saw combat in Cuba.

TR wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth... riding on daddies coat tails.

Bush is a draft dodger...

Bush is a CEO who's only claim to fame is every company he ever ran has gone bankrupt.

Bush is not brave... not daring... that credit belongs to the soldiers doing the fighting overseas.

Bush is a coward hiding behind brave men and women... and telling the enemy to "Bring it on"... why other people do the dieing.

Bush is the coward who can't stand to be in the presence of protestors while giving public speeches... so he has the secret service sequester them away and illegally arrest them.

Bush won't even speek before parliament and defend his point of view.... brrrrk chicken...

Bush would be the first to hide and scream like a baby if there ever were an attempt on his life.

Bush didnt' even want to ride in the traditional carriage with the Queen - "EEEK Al-qaeda is after me... I'm scared, please don't let them hurt me"

Mean while American soldiers are walking the streets of Baghdad surrounded by "terrorists."
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Saurdaukar on November 19, 2003, 05:55:09 PM
Youre very angry, arent you?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Martlet on November 19, 2003, 05:57:54 PM
I think he needs a twelve step program.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Sixpence on November 19, 2003, 07:10:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dago
I stand with Tumor on this one, I reserve the right to respond to those attacking my country or it's leader.  


You had no problem attacking Al Gore or the Clintons while they were in office, no? Don't walk the fence, either you stand for something or you don't.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dago on November 19, 2003, 07:28:52 PM
Sixpence,

 
Quote
You had no problem attacking Al Gore or the Clintons while they were in office, no? Don't walk the fence, either you stand for something or you don't.


Its just not that simple, but let me explain this.

Protests from within, acceptable.   Insults and crap about my country or President from outside, not acceptable.

Do a little more reading in this thread, you will see I have stated the following:

Quote
To ban protests, to arrest those of differant views smacks of exactly the type of government we say we are opposed to


Quote
I strongly believe everyone has a right, and it could be said an obligation to protest policies you dont agree with,


I dont see this sentiment as a hypocrasy:

Quote
I reserve the right to respond to those attacking my country or it's leader.


The Arabs have an old statement that goes something like this:

"Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin, me and my cousin against an outsider".

Similar sentiment here.  Protests from within are one thing, and it is alright to dissent and disagree, but attack from outside is a whole differant matter.

Reserving the right to defend my country or President is pretty well an inalienable right to an American, just as dissenting.  I do not say another American can't disagree or dislike Bush or his policies,  but I can defend him if I care to.  I had a right to dislike Clinton, and say so.  I never said anyone shouldn't defend him.  (just can't understand why someone would).

You can try and fault me for this, I am sure if you try hard, you can find another reason to fault me.  I don't care.  Try away, but maybe next think about it a little more first.


dago

a kinder, more gentle, touchy feely, respectful of everyone, type of guy.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Krusher on November 19, 2003, 08:07:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DmdNexus
If my words irritate the likes of you... I take great pleasure in that.  :aok



Tumor is one of many Americans, Brits, Aussies, Poles, Italians, and men and women from around the world that are part of the coalition. He has been there and probably will be going back at some point leaving his family and friends behind.

You can sit in the comfort of your living room spewing your hate and lies and enjoy yourself while they do the job. They are heros in my book and you sir are a worthless piece of garbage. If calling a spade a spade is subject to banning from this BBS so be it.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Gadfly on November 19, 2003, 08:33:37 PM
Not only that, but Nexus is too lazy to even study his history, re: TR.  In short, he is a small child(mentally) that has learned only one thing:  How to piss off other people.  In most online venues he is known as a griefer, that is, one who has nothing to contribute but takes his pleasure from depriving others of thiers.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Saurdaukar on November 19, 2003, 09:14:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Gadfly
Not only that, but Nexus is too lazy to even study his history, re: TR.  In short, he is a small child(mentally) that has learned only one thing:  How to piss off other people.  In most online venues he is known as a griefer, that is, one who has nothing to contribute but takes his pleasure from depriving others of thiers.


Also known as a "weazle" amongst the AH proud.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dowding on November 20, 2003, 02:48:05 AM
Quote
But then again, they have proved time and time again that they are incapable of anything really...but venom-spewing...


Pot - Kettle - Black, my trusted Anne Coulter loving friend.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: straffo on November 20, 2003, 03:02:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dago
I reserve the right to respond to those attacking my country or it's leader.  


I guess you never had attacked anyone country or leader and are a form of perfection the poor frog I am won't ever reach ?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Frogm4n on November 20, 2003, 04:43:28 AM
Our president is a coward for canceling his speech in front of the house of commons.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Replicant on November 20, 2003, 05:33:36 PM
Yes Show!  Day late but between 100,000 and 150,000 turned up for the protest today.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Hortlund on November 21, 2003, 02:12:58 AM
Police estimate was 70,000.

70 000 out of how many? ...what is the population in England now again?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Dowding on November 21, 2003, 02:34:37 AM
Population of England, Britain or the UK?

I'd say that is a fair turnout considering it was mid-week. If it had been on a saturday or sunday the numbers would be far higher I should think.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 21, 2003, 07:40:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
Population of England, Britain or the UK?

I'd say that is a fair turnout considering it was mid-week. If it had been on a saturday or sunday the numbers would be far higher I should think.


Why? These hippie's don't have jobs. Every day is a weekend for them. J/K...well, mostly kidding.

Ever watch the news footage of these protests? These people really do believe this is the 60's! I saw one guy playing bomgo's!

And have you ever noticed, most of these protesters seem to be about 18-25 years old?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: SLO on November 21, 2003, 08:01:48 AM
blablabla....

Bush is fuggin up bad right now in Iraq......sorry but this is where the international community should be involved.

there gonna keep shootin ya until you get the fug out.....

I don't like Bush....

but he ain't backin off....shows some balls:aok
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Sixpence on November 21, 2003, 08:08:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
And have you ever noticed, most of these protesters seem to be about 18-25 years old?


I believe most of those killed in vietnam were of that age.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: lazs2 on November 21, 2003, 08:20:19 AM
bush is terrible but he is miles ahead of any candidater that the democrats will field so far as personal freedoms that I am interested in.   I don't want democrat socialism and women running my life.  

if it were between bush and a libertarian I would vote libertarian but any vote that helps the dems is a vote for socialism.
lazs
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 21, 2003, 09:11:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sixpence
I believe most of those killed in vietnam were of that age.


That makes alot of sense, especially in the 1960's.

Why do you suppose they are still that age today?

Same goes for PETA and the Greenpeace folks. Always seem to be unshaved 23 year olds.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: kappa on November 21, 2003, 09:17:19 AM
:rolleyes:      lmao muckmaw.. excellent show of intellegence and understanding there....

Sorry Sixpence, guess you will have to spell it out..

k
AoM
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 21, 2003, 09:28:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by kappa
:rolleyes:      lmao muckmaw.. excellent show of intellegence and understanding there....

Sorry Sixpence, guess you will have to spell it out..

k
AoM


Not all that familiar with sarcasm, are we?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: kappa on November 21, 2003, 09:32:10 AM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
Not all that familiar with sarcasm, are we?



I dunno about 'we'. But I thought my post was very sarcastic.

k
AoM
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Sixpence on November 21, 2003, 10:27:13 AM
The point Muck is that they have alot more at stake during times of war than someone who is older. At 40 i do not worry about getting drafted or being sent off to war.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 21, 2003, 11:00:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sixpence
The point Muck is that they have alot more at stake during times of war than someone who is older. At 40 i do not worry about getting drafted or being sent off to war.


So your saying Anti-war protesters could care less about the war as long as it does not affect them.

Why don't they just hold signs that read "Don't draft me"  instead of "Baby Killer"?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Sixpence on November 21, 2003, 11:02:48 AM
Ahh, ok.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 21, 2003, 11:13:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Sixpence
Ahh, ok.


I understand their point of view and if my arnold was in danger of getting drafted for a war I did not believe in, I might protest as well. It just irks me that these folks present themselves as martyrs for a cause to save the world when in reality, they are just trying to save their own arnold.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: kappa on November 21, 2003, 11:25:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by muckmaw
I understand their point of view and if my arnold was in danger of getting drafted for a war I did not believe in, I might protest as well. It just irks me that these folks present themselves as martyrs for a cause to save the world when in reality, they are just trying to save their own arnold.



So, your saying if you were drafted your own actions would cause you to be 'irked' at yourself?? Preach on!

k
AoM
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 21, 2003, 11:29:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by kappa
So, your saying if you were drafted your own actions would cause you to be 'irked' at yourself?? Preach on!

k
AoM


If I were drafted I would simply do my job.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: kappa on November 21, 2003, 11:31:16 AM
Im sorry... Let me restate that question... If you were in danger of being drafted, would you protest and 'irk' yourself?

and o ya, you would do your job(goto war) with out question? You would die for a cause perhaps not truly known to you while your president says, 'Bring it on'??

k
AoM
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: muckmaw on November 21, 2003, 11:34:41 AM
I doubt it. If I were trying to get out of a draft, I'd probably move to Canada. Why leave the guesswork in it?

I honestly would not bother to try and avoid the draft though.

I'm no superhero, but why should I duck war service when other people are being sent into harms way.

Of course, no one really knows how they would react to a situation unless they are faced with it.

I could sit here and say I'd fight, but in reality, I might wet my pants and go cry in the corner.

;)

Also, I do not think soldiers can be afforded the luxury of questioning orders or the motivation of his commander in chief.
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: kappa on November 21, 2003, 11:49:58 AM
Excellent points.. One other point to your last statment is that draftees (sp) are not soldiers. They are human beings 'appropriated' by their goverment to do it's bidding. And although many of these people drafted may go and fight leaving you the feeling of 'why shouldnt I?' , that in its self is not justification to give life for (at least mine). It is always the few sending the many to do the fighting.

If peps are protesting, I would say at least 95% of the time they have a legitamate complaint as well as in many circumstances the right.

Patriotism to me is not always agreeing with the other person, but knowing it is their right and respecting it. Question the purpose, sure! But trying to disallow, is very unamerican to me.

k
AoM
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: airguard on November 21, 2003, 12:33:08 PM
Just let the left arm follow the right and there will be no worries :D

hey comeon a few demo`s in UK cant hurt ?
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: -dead- on November 21, 2003, 12:40:19 PM
Commemorative set of Steve Bell's take on the visit:

(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/11/18/bell1.jpg)

(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2003/11/19/1119stevebell512.jpg)

(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/11/20/BELL1.jpg)

(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2003/11/21/1121bell512.jpg)

(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/cartoons/2003/11/21/bush1smilesfinalbis.jpg)
Title: British Anti-War Hippies....No Show?
Post by: Holden McGroin on November 21, 2003, 12:54:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by DmdNexus
TR wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth...


Quote
Theodore Roosevelt (October 27, 1858–January 6, 1919) was born in New York into a wealthy family, one of the old Dutch families which had settled in America in the seventeenth century. At eighteen he entered Harvard College and spent four years there, dividing his time between books and sport and excelling at both. After leaving Harvard he studied in Germany for almost a year.


It looks as though his family may had some silver eating utensiles after all.

"If I could only be
President and Congress
too for just ten minutes." TR

"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." GWB Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.(Governing Magazine 7/98)

Seems like some other comparisons may be valid too.