Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on September 24, 2003, 07:42:28 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/23/protest.lawsuit.ap/index.html
Looks like that evil left-wing bogeyman, the ACLU, is at it again, defending the first amendment rights of all Americans.
Does the Bush administration support the constitution of the United States of America, or not?
-
can someone post a bobber jpg here?
thanks
-
there they go "profiling" again.. who would believe that people who are angry with bush would be more dangerous to him than those who support him? sheesh... next we'll be thinking that all the people who teach our kids are knee jerk liberal weenies... oh wait... they pretty much are.
lazs
-
Good comeback, Eagler. About what I expected from you.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Well?
-
LOL! They can peacefully assemble. There's just a bit of a debate as to WHERE they can peacefully assemble.
When I was going to Portland State, I remember the downtown paper razzing someone that protested the "diversity group" (a campus political group that held most campus offices) and championing those that ran the individual out of the meeting. The next week, the paper ran an article championing diversity group members that razzed a presentation that they considered anti-homosexual until the presenter was simply forced to stop because he could no longer be heard.
Protestors have been escorted out of Presidential speaches since I can remember. They just never really made the press until recently. And... only one group of them was stupid enough to sue over it.
MiniD
-
I do not see in that article where they are prohibiting anyone from protesting. If it is the fact that they are trying to control prime (T.V. in the face) realestate, then that is a tactic used by both major political parties at their events.
-
So, what you're saying is that it's ok for people to petition the government, as long as they do it out of sight and out of mind?
Somehow I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind.
-
freedom hating republicans at it again ?
man the overtime must be killing them.
-
You all take yourselves entirely to seriously. Lemme guess, none of the libs will be happy until Hillary is in office right?
Cold day in hell.
-
Nice deflection attempt, Zippatuh. Care to address the issue at hand in this thread?
-
Originally posted by banana
Good comeback, Eagler. About what I expected from you.
Well?
thought you were joking.. all the news in the world and you are worried about this?
if the "protestors" were not controlled, could there be a positive assembly of any sort, anywhere?
dont worry, the ACLU is on the case - if they can't handle it they will call in the big guns - JJ and Big Al
-
banana, please take your liberal whining to a designated Free Speech Forum.
-
if the "protestors" were not controlled, could there be a positive assembly of any sort, anywhere?
Eagler, as long as they are peacefully protesting by use of signs, then they should be allowed to get as close to the President, any president, as the President's supporters.
Of course, if they are not peacefully protesting and are not allowing the President to speak, then they should be removed from the vicinity. I believe in the President's first amendment rights, too.
-
Originally posted by popeye
banana, please take your liberal whining to a designated Free Speech Forum.
LMAO!
Thanks Popeye! :D
-
you have the right to cry about all the stupic crap you like banana.... just don't teach our children.
lazs
-
You guys all taking it as granted that the ACLU is telling the truth about this? Because they are nonprofit means they're interested only in truth, justice, and the American way, right? :rolleyes:
-
I think the protestors should be caned like the Indian protestors were when Clinton visited India. (And banana, if you're in the IS/IT business, you can thank Clinton for loss of your jobs to India too: Source: http://www.dawn.com/2000/03/25/int4.htm )
-
Wait a minute, Lazs. You support my right of free speech, but not of career choice. What kind of crazy logic is that?
You know, Lazs, it is ironic how I now wish you had been there fifteen years ago to dissuade me from becoming a teacher. It would've saved me a lot of stress.
Too late, though. I've already poisoned the minds of countless of impressionable little kids with the evil virtues of the first amendment to the US Constitution, sorry.
-
Three points:
1. The limited right to free speech imparted by the First Amendment does not equate to a right to be heard, by the President or anyone else.
2. The article does not state with specificity where any of the alleged infractions occurred. If GWB comes into my house (or auditorium) to speak, even though I may let some friends attend, I surely don't have to admit some whacko who wants to intrude and throw a tantrum.
3. In considering the propriety of a restraint on expression, the limited right to free speech will always be weighed against the liklihood and potential severity of resultant harm. For example, one cannot simply yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. I suspect that there are few potential harms more grave than that of bodily injury to the President. This case is a dog, particularly considering that there are alternate forums in which the discontented groups can (and do) express themselves.
-
Yup lib dems always stand for free speech and dont ever use their opower to punish or shut up folks that dont agree with them.
After a quick googgle search (I was looking for the incident with the Mendoza's that happened in Chicago when I stumbled over this. The Chicago incident was all over the news when it happened but I am unsure as to the accurracy of the rest but a good free speech lib like banana can check umm out.
http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/shake_bc.htm
-
Originally posted by Batz
Yup lib dems always stand for free speech and dont ever use their opower to punish or shut up folks that dont agree with them.
After a quick googgle search (I was looking for the incident with the Mendoza's that happened in Chicago when I stumbled over this. The Chicago incident was all over the news when it happened but I am unsure as to the accurracy of the rest but a good free speech lib like banana can check umm out.
http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/shake_bc.htm
Wotan, is that you?
Anyway, I agree. Peaceful protest against or for any president should never be denied. Note the word "any" in italics:
Eagler, as long as they are peacefully protesting by use of signs, then they should be allowed to get as close to the President, any president, as the President's supporters.
-
Originally posted by Batz
Yup lib dems always stand for free speech and dont ever use their opower to punish or shut up folks that dont agree with them.
After a quick googgle search (I was looking for the incident with the Mendoza's that happened in Chicago when I stumbled over this. The Chicago incident was all over the news when it happened but I am unsure as to the accurracy of the rest but a good free speech lib like banana can check umm out.
http://members.aol.com/basfawlty/shake_bc.htm
Did I read that article too fast? I couldn't find where the ACLU flew to the rescue.
-
Originally posted by banana
Wotan, is that you?
Anyway, I agree. Peaceful protest against or for any president should never be denied. Note the word "any" in italics:
So, the question is...were you outraged enough to post on a BBS or a newsgroup back then? (Ref: Batz link) Or, is this just another example of desperate Dems looking for *anything* on Bush because Clinton was such a joke of a president that Dems are looking for anything on Bush for a payback?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Did I read that article too fast? I couldn't find where the ACLU flew to the rescue.
Gee! I wonder why! Hehehe! :rofl
They really should change their name to what their acronym stands for...
American Civil Liberals Union
-
Rip, to coin a phrase from President Reagan... "Well, there you go again".
Stop changing the subject. This thread is not about what I did or did not do five years ago. It's about what the Bush administration is doing now.
Now then, please continue. But stay on topic.
-
Originally posted by banana
Wait a minute, Lazs. You support my right of free speech, but not of career choice. What kind of crazy logic is that?
You know, Lazs, it is ironic how I now wish you had been there fifteen years ago to dissuade me from becoming a teacher. It would've saved me a lot of stress.
Too late, though. I've already poisoned the minds of countless of impressionable little kids with the evil virtues of the first amendment to the US Constitution, sorry.
Don't you mean your own personal interpretation of the first ammendment?
One common thread which seems to run thru the liberal persona is fear and hatred.
-
I thought it was about what the ACLU claims the president is doing. Refuting their objectivity is very much on topic.
-
Originally posted by banana
Rip, to coin a phrase from President Reagan... "Well, there you go again".
Stop changing the subject. This thread is not about what I did or did not do five years ago. It's about what the Bush administration is doing now.
Now then, please continue. But stay on topic.
Nice way to by-pass the question, Senator banana. ;) "Next question please?"
-
Don't you mean your own personal interpretation of the first ammendment?
No, I don't think so, Rude.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.
-
Yes I was wotan......
Well I dunno about allowing any one to get "close" to the president. There are too many nuts.
But either way free speech doesnt mean you have a "right to be heard". You just have the right to say what ever you want. If folks dont wanna hear you they dont have to. That goes for the president.
These people are clearly aggitated, upset, angry or whatever to protest to begin with. There nothing wrong with the Secret service keeping them away from the president. Abortion protesters have to abide by certain rules, when kkk types protest and march they are segregated etc......
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?
I remember Clinton, in I believe Washington St. and in a rain storm behind armored glass, giving a speech with the crowd kept way back because of threats against him. I remember Bush Sr. throwing out a ball at a baseball game in full body armor so much so he couldnt rotate his arm enough to throw it. I am sure there are a few Bush = Hitler types that have made threats etc. Not to mention any president would be a prime target for any terrorist, nut whatever.
We dont know the situation surrounding the descision and we shouldnt just jumped to the conclusion that free speech over rides everything else. Their speech wasnt curtailed, just where they stood and where they said it.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
<<>>>
"million man march" in DC.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Ripsnort, I think I speak for all Americans on this BBS when I say...
Link this!
:rofl
Sorry, you set me up so well. :)
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Did congress pass a law while I wasn't watching?
-Sik
-
"The pattern we found was at presidential and vice presidential appearances, protesters were restricted to areas where they were out of sight, out of earshot and often out of mind," said Witold J. Walczak, legal director for the ACLU's Greater Pittsburgh chapter.
By banana
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.
Well it seems you arent in favor of unrestricted free speech. The ACLU disagrees with you.
But from reading it it isnt about "free speech" because these protesters werent denied a right to speak. They demanded to be "heard" to be "seen" and "kept on the mind".
And more importantly
The civil liberties group filed the lawsuit in federal court in Pennsylvania on behalf of four advocacy organizations that claimed that the Secret Service forced them into protest zones or other areas where they could not be seen by President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney or be noticed by the media covering their visits.
If this pisses you off the where were you when the Mendoza's were actually arrested?
You cant really believe your own arguement. I assume you realize how silly this is and are just hanging on to it to save face.
No one has a constitutional right to be "heard". You can scream all ya want but no one has to sit by and listen to you.
-
Originally posted by banana
Nice deflection attempt, Zippatuh. Care to address the issue at hand in this thread?
There is no issue in the thread so there is nothing to argue…
Freedom of speech does not mean free access to the president or an “open door” policy to whomever decides they have a bone to pick with the executive.
By this argument, any time someone protests in DC outside the white house but isn’t allowed access to the oval office has the right to sue the secret service. Come on.
So protesters were kept away from the president while on a road trip? Were they allowed to protest, yes. Do they have the right to be first in line for demonstration, I’m not sure that’s covered under the constitution.
If you have problems with the man write your congressman or woman. Hell, send a letter directly to the white house. Hey, hold a rally and invite some news coverage. Suing the secret service over “placement” of a group of people who could be considered hostile is somehow going around freedom of speech?
They’re reaching and you’re reaching and not finding. I’m getting the vision of a five year old throwing a tantrum on the cookie isle because mom picked up ginger snaps instead of Oreos. Maybe the ACLU should start hanging out in supermarkets to insure anyone who wants a specific cookie gets it. After all that’s you’re definition of freedom of speech, correct.
Whhhaaaaa!
You do make an excellent argument for “looser pays” in law suits though.
-
At first glance, I thought "no big deal."
But, this is worth noting:
The ACLU complaint lists several incidents where protesters were forced to assemble blocks away from where the president or vice president was speaking, while supporters of the administration's policy could hold their signs up in front of the building.
I seem to recall similar tactics used during a college commencement address last year.
In the end, does the ACLU have a case? Probably. Is anything going to change? Don't count on it. I suspect that past presidents have employed the same policy. It's difficult to get your message out with hecklers spoiling the flow. :)
-
I like the unpatriot act, you know, the one where they can search your house when you are not home? Nice.
-
Ah, progress. 100 years ago, governments opened fire on protestors they didn't like. Now, we simply herd them into holding pens. Hooray, freedom.