Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on October 12, 2006, 10:10:59 AM
-
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_5046957,00.html
Apparently a citizen made a bloodthirsty assault on the VP recently. While walking past him, he said "Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible" and continued on his way.
For this, he was arrested and held for assault. Media scrutiny seems to have had an effect, he was later released and charges were dropped.
If you're not worried about the way things are heading, you're not paying attention. I'd be interested in hearing any defense of the 'assault' charge, if anyone has another insight into it. Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds pretty dang bad.
-
Pretty soon they will be able to arrest you and not give a reason why. Hail king george
-
either he "couldn't hold his tongue" or he was looking for his payday as well
-
Originally posted by Eagler
either he "couldn't hold his tongue" or he was looking for his payday as well
If it is the latter, then it is a serious sad state of affairs when you know you will be (wrongfully) arrested for speaking your mind to an elected official.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_5046957,00.html
Apparently a citizen made a bloodthirsty assault on the VP recently. While walking past him, he said "Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible" and continued on his way.
For this, he was arrested and held for assault. Media scrutiny seems to have had an effect, he was later released and charges were dropped.
If you're not worried about the way things are heading, you're not paying attention. I'd be interested in hearing any defense of the 'assault' charge, if anyone has another insight into it. Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds pretty dang bad.
I saw nothing from the police in that article. Nothing at all to tell what they said he did. Only his side of the story.
As far as media scrutiny I don't think it had anything at all to do with his release. It seems to be a pattern of catch and release that has been going on for some time.
Catch em get them out of sight and release them when everything is over.
-
Here's another link with some more to the story:
http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc100406
The secret service won't comment on the case, and at the jail, the charges were changed to 'harassment' then eventually dropped by the DA.
Chilling.
-
:noid :noid
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Pretty soon they will be able to arrest you and not give a reason why. Hail king george
What do you mean soon?
-
Love it, you quote an OPINION piece that only provides Howards own description of what happened. After just two minutes of searching the web I found there's a little more out there that contradicts his version.
A Secret Service agent arrested Howards after a witness claimed Howards had touched Cheney. here (http://cw2.trb.com/news/local/kwgn-secret-service-sued,0,5275338.story?coll=kwgn-newslocal-1)
"His behavior and demeanor wasn't quite right," Zahren told the Vail Daily. "The agents tried to question him, and he was argumentative and combative." here (http://cbs4denver.com/topstories/local_story_168085135.html)
If you still don't think he should have been arrested, and I agree actually arresting him may have been a little too agressive, consider what events might have been prevented had the Secret Service (or SS as the lefties like to call them) been more proactive in checking out suspicious actors near public figures. The Bobby Kennedy assasination comes immediately to mind, there are more.
I'm sure there's lots more out there on Howards case but even if his version were 100% true it sure doesn't seem to indicate next coming of the Third Reich. BTW, Bill Clinton had a guy arrested in California for voicing his opinion against him in public. Didn't see many claims the Nazi's were coming then.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Here's another link with some more to the story:
http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc100406
The secret service won't comment on the case, and at the jail, the charges were changed to 'harassment' then eventually dropped by the DA.
Chilling.
I agree, seems some in this thread want to march in step with this admin no mater what they do. Lock up citizens for no reason, that’s ok as long as the president isn’t an EvIL LIBRULE he can to do no wrong.
Interesting the guy who loves to fly airplanes made by Fascists is unconcerned about our slow shift towards Fascism.
Thats taking the leather fetish a bit to far, to bad they don’t have a constitution fetish.:aok
-
Originally posted by rpm
What do you mean soon?
Seems rpm may have already tried to "Hail King George". :D
-
the news story was mostly about john blair, but if you don't agree with the govt policies on iraq you can put your ideas in writing and tell the govt what you think they should do about iraq.
"Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible", is not constructive criticism. far too many people can only criticize but have no helpful answers.
if you do not like the way the govt is handling anything, e-mail the president and members of congress and tell them how to do it right, it works, i know, and it is your right as a citizen of the USA.
criticism is easy, finding the right answers is hard.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the news story was mostly about john blair, but if you don't agree with the govt policies on iraq you can put your ideas in writing and tell the govt what you think they should do about iraq.
"Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible", is not constructive criticism. far too many people can only criticize but have no helpful answers.
if you do not like the way the govt is handling anything, e-mail the president and members of congress and tell them how to do it right, it works, i know, and it is your right as a citizen of the USA.
criticism is easy, finding the right answers is hard.
So its ok to be arrested for non constructive criticism? Is that really what you are saying? Really?
-
It's funny...It seems like everyone are masters of foreign policy, law and the military...atleast ito :aok
-
Originally posted by john9001
"Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible", is not constructive criticism. far too many people can only criticize but have no helpful answers.
Perhaps you could show me the constitutional freedom to "constructively criticize"? Was it "The government shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of helpful assistance delivered with a smile"?
-
Originally posted by rpm
What do you mean soon?
exactly
Here's hoping Howards gets a nice payday. And hopefully out of the pockets of the pigs that falsely arrested him, not out of the federal budget.
-
We must smoke out the nemici di libertà. Be they at home or abroad.
Never forget!
To salute the flag!
-
All four articles confirm the same thing. He went up to the VP and said that
Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible
. Because of that he was arrested. He WAS acting different to most others around Cheney who were no doubt smiling away and shaking hands. He disagreed with Cheney on Iraq and said so. If he'd been abusive or threatening or simply wouldn't shut up I would see no problem with him being taken away. But he said a single sentence and walked away. As for being 'argumentative and combative' when the agent questioned him. Well wouldn't you be?
John9001's suggestion that you should only have constructive criticism and put it in writing. Well that's ridiculous. If you can't confront your elected representatives and tell them they are wrong to their face then something is wrong.
As it happens, I think it was the work of an over zealous Secret Service agent who now quite rightly is facing a court case. But stuff like that sets dangerous precedents.
-
where in my post did i say he should have been arrested? To para-phrase the constitution "you have the right to petition the govt".
For the slow witted i repeat, to walk by the VP and say "your policies suck" is not petitioning the govt.
-
John, I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree with your interpretation of the bill of rights and I believe case precedent on the subject supports my view.
-
No, but you should have the right to do it anyways without fear. If you get up in his face all pyscho and screaming I could see a problem with security, but to walk up and face him and say his policies suck, and I can't wait for your administration to be out of office should be no problem.
-
Originally posted by john9001
where in my post did i say he should have been arrested? To para-phrase the constitution "you have the right to petition the govt".
For the slow witted i repeat, to walk by the VP and say "your policies suck" is not petitioning the govt.
Just because you got off the little yellow bus before you came here doesn't mean we did.
-
my gut instinct is to go with the secret service security detail on this one, sorry guys.
If there was a law broken Im sure some judge will bring justice to the universe and you all can go on with your lives unfettered by this travesty.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Just because you got off the little yellow bus before you came here doesn't mean we did.
how clever, your reference to a "little yellow bus" is a sly insinuation that i am of less than average intelligence.
-
Originally posted by Mightytboy
I saw nothing from the police in that article. Nothing at all to tell what they said he did. Only his side of the story.
As far as media scrutiny I don't think it had anything at all to do with his release. It seems to be a pattern of catch and release that has been going on for some time.
Catch em get them out of sight and release them when everything is over.
I think if anyone shows they're a little "disturbed" they are, as you say, detained so they don't become a problem. Can't have the VP wrestling on the ground with guy!;)
-
Dick didn't have his shotgun around... the dude is lucky.
-
North America
North Korea....
hmmmm ... I see a pattern :noid :noid
-
Originally posted by john9001
how clever, your reference to a "little yellow bus" is a sly insinuation that i am of less than average intelligence.
Figure that out on your own? Or did you have to have a friend help?
Oh and like your slow witted comment wasn’t?
Your going to complain after you did yourself?
BOOOOOOOOOOOo Hooooooooooooooooooooo
:cry
:lol
P.S. Not less then Average intelligence. I meant if you believe the nonsense you spew, you are probably mentally retarded. Just making sure you fully understand this time chief.
-
i dont know if "impersonating someone who's opinion counts" is a crime, but it should be
-
It's a good thing that everyone here missed the point. Completely.
Someone reported that they thought the guy touched the VP. The secret service apprehended him on this suspicion, and the guy become belligerent and combative.
[SIZE=10]END OF STORY[/SIZE]
-
i would like to see your "ending the story" credentials laser.
-
This is a case of selective reading 88. Everyone here is only reading the parts they want to read.
For example, the democrats here want to believe that he was arrested for saying something to the VP. Because of their selective reading abilities, they missed the part where someone thought he touched the VP and was arrested because of this.
The republicans can't get past the thought that maybe he didn't say anything vicious or scream at the VP.
-
i know.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
For example, the democrats here want to believe that he was arrested for saying something to the VP. Because of their selective reading abilities, they missed the part where someone thought he touched the VP and was arrested because of this.
Then why didn't they arrest him when he did it instead of 5+ minutes later? Did they need to schedule a phone conference first?
THEN, why did they change the charge to harassment?
-
Wasn't long ago that the fellow in Texas was carted off for telling Cheney to go f*** himself. I would have thought Cheney had grown a thicker skin by now, guess not.
-
Assault by definition does not have to be physical but for it to warrant an arrest I would think it should. If the guy touched Cheney in an offensive manner he definitely should have been arrested. Who would not agree with this?
Seems the anti-Bush/Cheney zealots are out in force.
-
Since the man was not convicted of anything, he didn’t commit a crime.
When he is charged and convicted then assault can be claimed, until then, this man is innocent tell proven guilty.
Maybe it’s you Bash fans are the ones who are desperate.
I guess I am going to be called a LibruLE again.. :lol
-
Since the man wasn't charged and therefore isn't guilty what is Cheney's offense?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Since the man wasn't charged and therefore isn't guilty what is Cheney's offense?
Seriously? You don't have a problem with people being arrested and held for hours for speech?
Your homework:
1. Declaration of Independence.
2. Constitution (If you're in a hurry, just read the preamble)
3. The Bill of Rights.
If you have time, throw in some Thomas Paine, then tell me why it's ok for politicians to intimidate and imprison (while under arrest, that's essentially what it is) citizens because they say things he disagrees with.
Finally, if you STILL don't see a problem, I offer you this opportunity to make one final attempt to prove that you have a shred of intellectual honesty: Ask yourself, would you be as sanguine about this if the politician in question had been Ted Kennedy and someone had been arrested for saying "You are a disgrace to the government"?
-
you can be assaulted by words or you can be assaulted by force. you can be "arrested" for both. one will get you a ticket, the other jail.
my 2 cents
-
This REALLY is hilarious. What a panicky bunch.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Seriously? You don't have a problem with people being arrested and held for hours for speech?
Your homework:
1. Declaration of Independence.
2. Constitution (If you're in a hurry, just read the preamble)
3. The Bill of Rights.
If you have time, throw in some Thomas Paine, then tell me why it's ok for politicians to intimidate and imprison (while under arrest, that's essentially what it is) citizens because they say things he disagrees with.
Finally, if you STILL don't see a problem, I offer you this opportunity to make one final attempt to prove that you have a shred of intellectual honesty: Ask yourself, would you be as sanguine about this if the politician in question had been Ted Kennedy and someone had been arrested for saying "You are a disgrace to the government"?
Uh, did you ignore the part of a witness claiming the man touched Cheney? Offensive physical contact is most definitely assault and grounds for arrest. I don't think the man was interested in shaking Cheney's hand or that the touch was affectionate in any way. The Secret Service acted and probably decided the guy was not a serious threat to the VP and let him off the hook. This is nothing more than a malcontent's whining and deserves no one's further attention.
-
I heard Cheney appologized and offered to take him hunting ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I heard Cheney appologized and offered to take him hunting ...
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I heard Cheney appologized and offered to take him hunting ...
PAHAHAHAHA:aok
-
Golly..all these posts and the board repubs have not used the "its ok Clinton did it too" defense, congrats guys..there is hope for you:)
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.html
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Since the man was not convicted of anything, he didn’t commit a crime.
When he is charged and convicted then assault can be claimed, until then, this man is innocent tell proven guilty.
Maybe it’s you Bash fans are the ones who are desperate.
I guess I am going to be called a LibruLE again.. :lol
And I thought Johnnie Cochran was dead.
Here's a clue. Because someone isn't convicted doesn't mean they're innocent. They're innocent only in the eyes of the law. They're not innocent in the eyes of common sense. Are you gonna send your baby over to Karr's house for him to babysit? He's not convicted of anything, but I think common sense say he's pretty freaky and a child murder waiting to happen.
-
Maybe it�s you Bash fans are the ones who are desperate.
====
I listened to this guys lawyer on the local liberal radio talk show and even the lawyer is a leftest smart bellybutton just looking for a hole to crap in.
Nah....this one belongs to the "bush is hitler" crowd, you guys earned this one.
-
i think it is maybe more of a
cheney = Destro
than a
bush = hitler
-
yay for freedom of speech :aok
our leaders suck....
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's a good thing that everyone here missed the point. Completely.
Someone reported that they thought the guy touched the VP. The secret service apprehended him on this suspicion, and the guy become belligerent and combative.
[SIZE=10]END OF STORY[/SIZE]
Ummmm. Sounds like the Secret Service agent covering his bellybutton to me.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Golly..all these posts and the board repubs have not used the "its ok Clinton did it too" defense, congrats guys..there is hope for you:)
http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.html
....snippet from above in another post...by Mace I think.....BTW, Bill Clinton had a guy arrested in California for voicing his opinion against him in public. Didn't see many claims the Nazi's were coming then.
pretty close I'd say.
-
It is not freedom of speech or anything like that. It is ,who the hell knows if this guy is a nut wacko job or what? Do you know? Do I know? Are any of us mind readers? We just don't know. I'll say this: if you got the nerve to go up to the vice president of the United States and lash out at him verbally, waving your arms, touching him or not, you pretty much got the nerve to do almost any stupid thing. This guy, Steve Howards, was obviously a potential trouble maker.
A shopping mall to make derogatory opinions known to the vice president is just stupid. So what was Steve Howards thinking? That maybe Cheney would go back to the oval office and tell the President that some guy in a shopping mall told him that "our policies in Iraq are reprehensible" so we should stop the war.??? Maybe he thought the vice president would say, "what do you mean? lets go get a slice of pizza and a coke at the mall restaurant and talk about it".??? There is no method to Steve Howards madness. It is just stupid, about as stupid can be.
So I say lets check this idiot out so we can provide some security for the vice president of the United States. Don't act like a nut wacko and you won't be treated as one. Doesn't the vice president deserve some security? He is after all a very important person.
Does anybody think his wife would like to hear that some nut job killed her husband because we had to play some washed out freedom of speech game routine for the politically correct? Freedom of speech is here, it is there, it is everywhere. It is even in your hair. I swear I swear. :) Look how we use it on this BB.
We are free. However, and this is the tricky part, it does require some tact to apply it properly. You just don't walk up to a guy, any guy, especially the vice president of the United States in a shopping mall and mouth off to him without asking for some trouble. This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it is just a common sense issue.
-
Clutz, there are so many things wrong with that, I don't know where to start. You're entitled to your opinion, but I really hope you never teach.
-
Originally posted by Clutz
It is not freedom of speech or anything like that. It is ,who the hell knows if this guy is a nut wacko job or what? Do you know? Do I know? Are any of us mind readers? We just don't know. I'll say this: if you got the nerve to go up to the vice president of the United States and lash out at him verbally, waving your arms, touching him or not, you pretty much got the nerve to do almost any stupid thing. This guy, Steve Howards, was obviously a potential trouble maker.
Lighten up, Francis. ;)
"Steve Howards walked past, not three feet away from Dick Cheney. Unable to hold his tongue, he said, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible." He and his boy then walked on, he said.
Ten minutes later, a Secret Service agent stopped Steve Howards and arrested him for "assaulting" Dick Cheney. He was hauled off to Eagle County Jail. "
-
a friend of my mine made a similar comment to president clinton and he was also arrested and released shortly there after. I think the comment he made was God will judge you or words to that effect at a service in the national cathedral. the thing is high profile people are often targets for assassination and people making comments of that nature will be arrested. if you want to spew do it on a bbs. that or be the media darling ala cindy sheehan.
-
Clutz is unencumbered by the facts.
-
Originally posted by (http://images.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/wy/cheney.jpg)
pwnd, rofl
-
Originally posted by RedTop
pretty close I'd say.
Ahhhh, I love it when people try to take what is clearly written and spin it. Since you're context challenged I'll explain that I was simply pointing out that when something like this happens and it can be blamed on Republicans than it becomes all about the SS and Nazis. When it can be blamed on a Democrat nobody seems to much notice. I don't see where I made any comparison to the actions of either Cheney, Clinton or their representatives. Looks like you're being a bit defensive to interpret it as if I did.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Clutz is unencumbered by the facts.
This is interesting. If you know what the "facts" are Chairboy, please tell me. List them one by one. Don't tell me what you read in the articles concerning this matter of Steve Howards, I have read them. What is in the articles (at this point anyway) may or may not be facts. So, please tell me what facts you are talking about so I can gather some more information.
Also, as you have lashed out at me, saying "You're entitled to your opinion, but I really hope you never teach". I say to you, I hope you never teach. Especially English. Your replies to my post in this forum are vague at best.
When speaking or addressing people, generally you should present a topic thesis, support it with commentary, and end with a conclusion statement
.
-
Originally posted by Clutz
This is interesting. If you know what the "facts" are Chairboy, please tell me. List them one by one. Don't tell me what you read in the articles concerning this matter of Steve Howards, I have read them. What is in the articles (at this point anyway) may or may not be facts. So, please tell me what facts you are talking about so I can gather some more information.
Also, as you have lashed out at me, saying "You're entitled to your opinion, but I really hope you never teach". I say to you, I hope you never teach. Especially English. Your replies to my post in this forum are vague at best.
When speaking or addressing people, generally you should present a topic thesis, support it with commentary, and end with a conclusion statement
.
lol, were you not the one saying he was lashing out and waving his arms?
-
ok its long overdue:
Boosh is teh Himmler!!!!
Zieg Oil!!!
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
lol, were you not the one saying he was lashing out and waving his arms?
I had a slight mistake in my wording.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
lol, were you not the one saying he was lashing out and waving his arms?
I had a mistake in my wording. Dang it! I intended to say, waving your arms or not, and touching him or not. I am sorry I miss spoke. As far as lashing out verbally I did mean to say that. However, I imagine my comments are touching a nerve that is much more than any miss understanding my grammatical error has caused. And in regard to my error, it doesn't change the general thought of protecting our national leaders explained within my previous post, so it is somewhat immaterial if he waved his arms or not.
My point, if it wasn't obvious, is that any aggression be it large or small displayed toward a national leader within the setting of a public appearance should not be taking lightly at all. Error on the safe side so to speak. This is my humble opinion and nothing more than that.
-
Originally posted by Clutz
My point, if it wasn't obvious, is that any aggression be it large or small displayed toward a national leader within the setting of a public appearance should not be taking lightly at all.
"I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible" = aggression?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
exactly
Here's hoping Howards gets a nice payday. And hopefully out of the pockets of the pigs that falsely arrested him, not out of the federal budget.
Pigs?
Damn funky.....
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Pigs?
Damn funky.....
LOL. I think Funked1 must be what's called an "anachronistic throwback".
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's a good thing that everyone here missed the point. Completely.
Someone reported that they thought the guy touched the VP. The secret service apprehended him on this suspicion, and the guy become belligerent and combative.
[SIZE=10]END OF STORY[/SIZE]
I read the story and had to laugh, this is the most stale police trick in the book. Lets call it an "open secret" in law enforcement. In order to stop someone police need probable cause, if there is none... a fictional anonymous informant, or "passer by" will do. Where is this witness? and conformation its true?
Or, I'll bet its a staffer who got upset and gave the Waffen SS the PC they needed to screw with the guy.
I find it very odd that while there was a crowd around the vice clone, only 1 person noticed?, yea right. If some dude got too close to the vice clone, there would be film at 11 to show the secret service agents summarily beating his as5... they dont wait for anyone to get close enough to think of touching the clones.
-
CCTV could've both prevented and solved this.
-
<>
another referance to republican=neo-con=neo-nazi=nazi.
i guess we will have to listen to two more years of this until hillery saves the world.
-
In Soviet Russia policies protest you.
-
any Vice President has a crowd of people around him that have ear pieces, carry loaded guns and are trained to kill......hell...they are trained to jump in FRONT of a firing gun These people are very very nervous by nature....be very carefull around someone with a nervous security detail. I am of the opinion that this guy was/is an idiot, or at least he did a very stupid thing. He walked up into the safety bubble of a VP and basically insulted him with a disparaging comment. If this guy was wronged then I hope he gets righted, but still think the guy was a idiot for what he did.
Im betting the perp is an idiot, regardless of how any court rules.
-
Yeager, the problem is, this 'excitable bunch' didn't react until 5-10 minutes later when they saw him again. He said his thing and kept walking. Later on, they see him and arrest him.
That doesn't sound reactive, that sounds premeditated.
-
so marine.... all probable cause is just an excuse? How bout if a democrat uses it... is it legit then?
lazs
-
you know the old saying, "screw me over once, shame on you, screw me over twice, shame on me".
The guy was headed BACK into the VPs area of operation after delivering the first problematic opinion. I would have tagged him too. The guy was just itching for a beating far as I can tell.
-
When you say "area of operation", you realize you're saying "a mall", right? It's not like he was arrested while rapelling into Fort Mead from a stealth helicopter, for all we know he was heading off to get an Orange Julius.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Yeager, the problem is, this 'excitable bunch' didn't react until 5-10 minutes later when they saw him again. He said his thing and kept walking. Later on, they see him and arrest him.
That doesn't sound reactive, that sounds premeditated.
unless there is a clear and present danger the guards do not react until the VIP has moved on, then they question the person.
-
First, "they're responding to an immediate possible threat". Now, there's no "clear and present danger" and they're arresting him afterwards.
Pick a story and stick to it.
BTW, John9001, it's not illegal to say "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible". It doesn't matter if you're saying it to your grandmother, a police officer, or the president. This is why the first ammendment is so important. English subjects did NOT have that type of freedom, and they COULD be arrested and even executed for saying something that the sovereign didn't like.
This is the United States of America, not royal ol' England of the 1700s.
-
I think the guy should live out the rest of his life as a victim. He'll be the perfect democrat. Poor poor man done got arrested for (in a weeping tone)"absolutely nothing!!!"
Hope he has a wonderful like as a victim:aok
-
It doesn't matter if you're saying it to your grandmother, a police officer, or the president.
====
Are you being naive here simply because this story fits into your preconceived notions about how hitleresque and facist bush is, or are you simply naive? because if you think you can just walk up to a president or vice president in post 9/11 21st century america and, after two centuries that have already experienced grevious political assasinations, just spill your guts out and tell a President or VP how screwed up you think he/she is, then I suggest you are either naive, or living in the distant past.
In any event, stay away from the VP man, nothing good will come of it.
-
Yeager, if you think that being arrested for saying something like that is acceptable, then either you're out of touch with the meaning of our constitution or things in this country are even worse than I imagined.
-
Oh just forget it Chairboy, I feel as if I am talking to a brick wall here. I dont believe what this guy did was anywhere near smart and I dont believe the constitution is being violated by tagging his ingorant tail and hauling him before the man. Maybe the court system can sort it all out :rolleyes: and Ill support whatever that outcome is but Im sticking with the darwinian approach. The guy is lucky he didnt get lead tagged.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Oh just forget it Chairboy, I feel as if I am talking to a brick wall here. I dont believe what this guy did was anywhere near smart and I dont believe the constitution is being violated by tagging his ingorant tail and hauling him before the man. Maybe the court system can sort it all out :rolleyes: and Ill support whatever that outcome is but Im sticking with the darwinian approach. The guy is lucky he didnt get lead tagged.
He isnt being charged with anything, HE is sueing the secret service agent, you talk about talking to a wall, you can't even get that right?:aok
-
The issues appears to be:
1. Unlawful detention.
2. Use of government position to intimidate.
If his telling of the story is accurate, then I feel 1 & 2 are legit problems here that need redress. If his story is not accurate, then all bets are off.
-
gtora2,
thanks for taking the time to straighten me out :rolleyes:
-
Straitening you out would take far more work then I care to put in, sorry Pal, you're just stuck being you. :p :rofl
-
I am flattered by your short bus. Care to share a seat :D
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Ahhhh, I love it when people try to take what is clearly written and spin it. Since you're context challenged I'll explain that I was simply pointing out that when something like this happens and it can be blamed on Republicans than it becomes all about the SS and Nazis. When it can be blamed on a Democrat nobody seems to much notice. I don't see where I made any comparison to the actions of either Cheney, Clinton or their representatives. Looks like you're being a bit defensive to interpret it as if I did.
Easy Mace...Im on your side. Just pointing out to the other poster that a referance all be it very subtle was made. It was also made with sarcasm. At least to me. I took it that way. And I agree totally with your thought.
It's always , from now on , going to be that way. Whatever 1 side does the other will be on it like stink on , well you get the point. Never thinking about what thier side did probably not to long ago that was the same. They just want to yell louder to make themselves right.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Easy Mace...Im on your side. Just pointing out to the other poster that a referance all be it very subtle was made. It was also made with sarcasm. At least to me. I took it that way. And I agree totally with your thought.
It's always , from now on , going to be that way. Whatever 1 side does the other will be on it like stink on , well you get the point. Never thinking about what thier side did probably not to long ago that was the same. They just want to yell louder to make themselves right.
Roger that Redtop, my apologies for mis-reading your post.