# Quarantining Dissent



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 5, 2004)

Today's News: Quarantining Dissent 

Author: James Bovard   Source: The San Francisco Chronicle 

Title: QUARANTINING DISSENT 

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Full Story


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2004)

Yeah, they've been pulling this ever since the Republican convention in LA a few years back...

Did Clinton's government do this too? I don't recall it, but I also don't recall looking...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 5, 2004)

I don't believe it was done to this high of a level.  Now "Why" its being done can mean a few things.

1- To stiffle any disagreement with W's policies.

2- To "Protect" him from any conflicting evidence that he's not doing a superb job as CIC.  

3 - All of the above?

At the moment, I don't have time to do as much digging as I'd like, but if anyone else wants to dig into how much of this un-american action on the part of our government has happened under the last couple of CIC's, please do so.  I'd be interested in the intel. 

:asian:


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 5, 2004)

I think it is more out of safety than stiffling free speech. A lot of these yahoo's end up rioting or burning flags or some other stint to get on TV in the end anyways.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Yeah, they've been pulling this ever since the Republican convention in LA a few years back...
> 
> Did Clinton's government do this too? I don't recall it, but I also don't recall looking... *



It is standard operating procedure (SInce early 90's or earlier) for the Secret Service to investigate all known psycho's in the area the President is to travel too. It is their responsibility for the protection of the President.

It may not have been done to this level in the past, then again it may depend upon the general level of threats the president receives, or the level of safety the President desires.

Not sure if it is right, yet I understand to need to stop people from trying to bomb or shoot the President.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 5, 2004)

In my neck of the woods, the police arrested an 89 year old grandmother waving a Wellstone sign when Cheney was on the stump for Coleman.  Yeah, dangerous...


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 5, 2004)

They've done this when Jimmy "Peanut" Carter came to my town.  I remember watching from the window at the downtown plaza how long they took to set it all up and "clear" things/people out.

I'm guessing that ever since the death of JFK, there has always been some security people sent on ahead to set things up before the CIC goes anywhere and to make sure the "muzzles are arranged" into their places.

- Ceicei


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2004)

Actually, I think there may be a distinction to be established here. Ceratainly the secret service has been moving mailboxes, welding manhole covers, etc., especially since JFK's assassination. Well and good, I guess, though it is my suspicion that in the end this won't stop somebody who's really serious--and of course there is something to be said for stopping the amateurs. 

But I think what's being asked about here has to do with cordoning off protesters for reasons that have to do with the image projected on the news and with suppressing certain objectionable political ideas, and not really with security.

Again, I continue to be interested when folks who often espouse libertarian ideas argue against them in cases where the right of free speech includes their opposition...

I say, too damn bad if the Prez is embarassed. Looking back at our history, it seems to me that there have been an awful lot of cases in which he should be...

Thanks.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 5, 2004)

Hmm. I dunno. I don't think these people would have a "censorship" problem if they decided to organise and protest any other day. The Sercet Service isn't stopping them from that.

That's my basis for leaning more towards the security reason.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 5, 2004)

I think if they want to make sure that the person has no waepons, i.e. goes through a search, and is far enough away from any vehicle with the sign so as to not cause any damage or concern to someone in the the vehicle.

Yet, if the person wishes to protest and there is no permit required, and the person is there at the last minute, then they should be able to hold up their sign.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 5, 2004)

Actually, I'd thought the point was that protesters of all varieties were getting shoved into quarantine zones, so that neither the Prez nor the media saw them easily. 

Huh. I guess I thought we were supposed to take that stuff about, "petitioning for a redress of grievances," right to the top, and that waving a sign was as important as one's right to wave a gun.

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Spud (Jan 6, 2004)

The article discusses how the secret service is quarantining people based upon their message  i.e. if you have a Bush/Cheney Sign you are allowed to stay on the street. If you have a protest sign you are ordered to move into a designated free speech/protest zone. The argument about security is asinine. I think Al Queda knows how to find a couple of Bush T-Shirts...




:shrug:


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 6, 2004)

To neglect security completely is what would be asinine.

Time and again these protesters quickly turn violent. Just look at the WTO protests. It doesn't take al-queda to throw a rock through a window.

I wouldn't risk anything with these flag-burning, car tippers. They're the real disgrace.


----------



## Spud (Jan 6, 2004)

Mike, do you really think it is appropriate to limit free speech based upon one's message? That's what we're talking about here. Not lobbing rocks, tipping cars or torching Starbucks. Those are crimes. We are talking about the Presidents security teams isolating people based upon their message. 

One citizen with a sign saying We Love the POTUS vs one with a sign saying Impeach the Shrub should be treated differently? Somehow the protest sign can be used as a club, but not the Bush sign?  The car tippers arent smart enough to blend into a crowd? This isnt about physical protection, its about political protection and thats not a valid use of the Presidents security staff.  :soapbox:


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 6, 2004)

The thing is, at these political events they do run you through metal detectors, bag checks, etc., for security reasons.

So the arguement that proventing protestors for "security" is ridicules.

This is manufactured consent at its best.

Yet, this censorship has also been done for a long time, as far as I know; at least I know that it happened during the Clinton administration. So this action can't be isolated to just the Bush administration.

Although, it gets the attention because there are more Protestors against the current Bush administration more then in previous administrations. I heard that the amount of Protestors against our president in the U.S. has exceeded that since the Vietnam War (although I don't know for sure if it is true or not). But I DO KNOW that the amount of protestors against our President worldwide has far exceeded that of any other administration.

Just something to think about.

PAUL


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 6, 2004)

I simply will not believe it is based solely on the message. No. Uh-uh.

Highest numbers of protestors worldwide? Well, I don't mind that so much. Inside the country, well, he's also had the highest approval numbers too.

Funny how you get both now-a-days.


----------



## Spud (Jan 6, 2004)

Interesting  the American Conservative Magazine is also tracking this story  and it mirrors what the San Francisco Chronicle and Salon said. 

American Conservative Magazine (Tool of the Left)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 6, 2004)

Could be worse...could be J. Edgar.

I was watching a show last night on political cartooning...apparently, one of the reasons European cartoons look a lot more savage about Dubya is that some American editors have taken to refusing cartoons that they feel puts the Prez in a bad light...wartime, and all that, don't ya know.

"Manufactured consent," is exactly right. Guess that's what happens when you're 'lected by a minority, and don't really know what the hell you're doing...


----------



## Seig (Jan 7, 2004)

Yes, the Clinton administration did the same thing.  I used to work for WorldCom at the UUNET headquarters in Ashburn, VA.  Clinton was making a visit to the facility.  The SS (coincidence?) made their advanced scout.  They spoke to the higher ups about people that did not like Clinton and my name came up.  I was approached by a Special Agent and told not to come out of my office during the visit.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Hmm. I dunno. I don't think these people would have a "censorship" problem if they decided to organise and protest any other day. The Sercet Service isn't stopping them from that.
> 
> That's my basis for leaning more towards the security reason. *



A Protest that is visible to no one, is not really much of a protest, is it? You know ... "If a tree falls in the woods . . . ."


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I simply will not believe it is based solely on the message. No. Uh-uh.*


*
This comment does not surprise me. 




			Highest numbers of protestors worldwide? Well, I don't mind that so much. Inside the country, well, he's also had the highest approval numbers too.
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have heard of the U.S. Seventh Cavalry? Circa 1876?




			Funny how you get both now-a-days.
		
Click to expand...

*When citizens won't believe the voice of the loyal opposition are being squelched ... and when the citizens can not remember bad things can happend to good people, it does not surprise me that you find the 50/50 split funny. I find it sad and scary.

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *A Protest that is visible to no one, is not really much of a protest, is it? You know ... "If a tree falls in the woods . . . ." *



Well the thing is, it's not a formal protest, it's disorganized group  of protestors. And I think you need to file to have a special protest. And these people can do that any day of the week. Anywhere.

And they'll be given a permit, a time to place to do it, and they will not be interfering with a motorcade.

The million man march did it (OK, 250,000 man).


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Well the thing is, it's not a formal protest, it's disorganized group  of protestors. And I think you need to file to have a special protest. And these people can do that any day of the week. Anywhere.
> 
> And they'll be given a permit, a time to place to do it, and they will not be interfering with a motorcade.
> ...



So, I need a permit to walk around in a circle carrying a sign ... but I don't need a permit to walk anywhere with a gun? 

Hmmmm ???  - Mike
OK .. I know I am combining comments from another thread to this post ... but ... oh, well


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 8, 2004)

If them's the rules. Granted I didn't write them. I see the point that the two issues are 1st and 2nd Ammendment rights that require permits now.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *So, I need a permit to walk around in a circle carrying a sign ... but I don't need a permit to walk anywhere with a gun?
> 
> Hmmmm ???  - Mike
> OK .. I know I am combining comments from another thread to this post ... but ... oh, well *



In NY, you need a permit for a gun...not sure of laws elsewhere.

I think the big argument is that the supporters were allows visibility, while those in the 'disagreeing position' were shunted off to a non-visible spot, thereby giving the illusion of 100% support.  The lack of media coverage of those disenting also adds to the illusion, as does the lie of the idea of a special "Free Speech Zone".

I always thought America was a free speech zone in its entirety.

Obviously, I was wrong.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2004)

Mister Mike is in Massachusetts, which has some pretty strict laws concerning firearms. 

I now live in New Hampshire, and we have almost no laws concerning firearms. If I am not mistaken, the only permit available in NH, is to carry a concealed weapon. If I want to wear my pistol, in a holster on my hip, there are no requirements.

Seems to me the good folks of New Hampshire are crazy.

Yes ... Free Speech does seem a rare commodity these days.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 8, 2004)

Actually MA firearm laws are some of the worst in the country, next to California.

I think no matter where you are if you wear a pistol on your hip in public, you will most likely cause a public disturbance and it may be taken from you.

As for free speech a rarity, well, not really but I see areas where it is being diminished.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 8, 2004)

First off, there's a difference between the Sec. Service's imposition of--well--security, and shoving people identified as protestors off into a corner because you don't want their signs on the evening news, yes?

And second--organized vs. disorganized protest? Org. OK, disorganized right out? Hm. MM, aren't you the fella who's arguing strongly against gun control laws--that is the laws which ORGANIZE gun ownership and use? I see that you've skipped over a previously-asked, related question--doesn't the Constitution guarantee the right to bear arms as part of a, "well-regulated militia," not as a disorganized gaggle of gun owners?

Interesting picking and choosing of which principles one wants to accommodate.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 8, 2004)

> First off, there's a difference between the Sec. Service's imposition of--well--security, and shoving people identified as protestors off into a corner because you don't want their signs on the evening news, yes?



Please PROVE to me that keeping them off the news is the ONLY reason the Secret Security is keeping these people away from a motorcade. Have you come across some documents that the rest of us haven't?

I'll reitterate my point that media coverage is not the reason for keeping the quacks away from the President. These people can get themselves aired 365 days a year with no problem. Why isn't the Secret Security chasing down poeple all over the country right now?



> And second--organized vs. disorganized protest? Org. OK, disorganized right out? Hm. MM, aren't you the fella who's arguing strongly against gun control laws--that is the laws which ORGANIZE gun ownership and use? I see that you've skipped over a previously-asked, related question--doesn't the Constitution guarantee the right to bear arms as part of a, "well-regulated militia," not as a disorganized gaggle of gun owners?



I'm not saying one law is better over the other. In fact, I've stated that both the first and second ammendment rights are now governed by stricter laws (require permits). I certainly didn't say I was FOR any of them, or against one and not the other.

I'm simply putting out there what I think is the reason for the protesters being kept away from the President and of the belief it is not to "censor the media."


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Actually MA firearm laws are some of the worst in the country, next to California.
> 
> I think no matter where you are if you wear a pistol on your hip in public, you will most likely cause a public disturbance and it may be taken from you.
> ...



I find your choice of the word 'WORST' very interesting. In my post, I stated that Massachusetts has 'STRICT'. The word strict does not, or should not, imply a connotation of good or bad. However, the word you chose does imply that any laws concerning guns are a bad thing for society.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 8, 2004)

Unless I'm misreading, your statements--"Actually MA firearm laws are some of the worst in the country, next to California,"--clearly equate strong gun control laws with badness. Your words, not mine. Further, unless I'm drawing too much conclusions, it seems very clear that you associate California and Masachusetts with, "liberalism," and with liberals' unfair restrictions on gun ownership.

The Service, my understanding is, have kept tabs on potential threats for some time now. However, I do not know of cases in which a Democratic administration has specifically had its opposition swept out of view--even Daley didn't do that, he had heads busted right out in front. Personally, I blame clowns like Hoover and Nixon--but I'd be happy to see facts to the contrary.

And again, I find it remarkable that you are arguing for regulated free speech on the grounds that rights have to balance, but unregulated gun ownership, on the grounds that rights don't.

One point that hasn't come up in a while--part of our problem has zip to do with individuals. It has to do with corporations claiming their, "right," to flood this country with guns. 

A good sign of this is that folks don't seem content with a hunting rifle, a shotgun or two, maybe a target pistol (because targets are pretty much what pistols are good for), like when I was I kid. They want more and more and more boom-stick--very much in the way that people want more and more stuff of every sort. That's not the right to bear arms--that's consumerism.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 8, 2004)

> Unless I'm misreading, your statements--"Actually MA firearm laws are some of the worst in the country, next to California,"--clearly equate strong gun control laws with badness. Your words, not mine. Further, unless I'm drawing too much conclusions, it seems very clear that you associate California and Masachusetts with, "liberalism," and with liberals' unfair restrictions on gun ownership.



Yes.



> And again, I find it remarkable that you are arguing for regulated free speech on the grounds that rights have to balance, but unregulated gun ownership, on the grounds that rights don't.



Nope, I'm not.



> One point that hasn't come up in a while--part of our problem has zip to do with individuals. It has to do with corporations claiming their, "right," to flood this country with guns.
> 
> A good sign of this is that folks don't seem content with a hunting rifle, a shotgun or two, maybe a target pistol (because targets are pretty much what pistols are good for), like when I was I kid. They want more and more and more boom-stick--very much in the way that people want more and more stuff of every sort. That's not the right to bear arms--that's consumerism.



Guns aren't pushed on us by corporations. It's simple supply and demand. Now with government regulations, they have to design "safe" guns. I'll never really grasp that one.

But guns have come a long way from flint lock muskets to the shotgun to the rifle and revolvers have had their evolution as well. Are you saying these companies should not be allowed to compete as do other product manufacturers on the market?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 8, 2004)

Back to the topic at hand...

In my hometown, when Mr. Cheney was on the stump for Norm Coleman, protesters were pushed off to the far corners of the parking lot as far away as they could be from the VP.  Pro-bushers were lining the streets where the VP was walking in camera view.  This doesn't sound like security to me.  Any assassin worth his salt, will put on a Vote Bush shirt and fire away.  When an 89 year old grandmother decided to join the rest of the people with her Wellstone sign, the SS took it away and had her arrested.  Now that is security.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 8, 2004)

Huh. So people NEED all them guns? Just like people NEED all the crap we buy--and it has nothing, nothing at all to do with, say, marketing campaigns. OK--but then, what are corporations spending all that money on?

Lots of products are--usually with damn good reason--regulated by government. (An exception might be the Bush government's recent pursuit of Americans who buy their prescription drugs in Mexico and Canada--but to be sure, that has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with the campaign contributions of major drug companies.)

Similarly, there are of course limits on free speech of many sorts. However, as far as I know this is the FIRST administration to limit speech entirely because of the image it presents on the evening news.

And again, it's odd to me that folks who are arguing libertarian views about guns would be arguing against libertarian ideas about speech and dissent.

By the way--the right to specifically target the Big Guy with protest is perhaps the oldest right of speech there is. It is directly comparable to the old commoner's right to cry their grievances to the King, and to directly ask for justice...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Huh. So people NEED all them guns? Just like people NEED all the crap we buy--and it has nothing, nothing at all to do with, say, marketing campaigns. OK--but then, what are corporations spending all that money on?
> 
> Lots of products are--usually with damn good reason--regulated by government. (An exception might be the Bush government's recent pursuit of Americans who buy their prescription drugs in Mexico and Canada--but to be sure, that has nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with the campaign contributions of major drug companies.)
> ...


 They are Savage's. Get it? he he he
Sean


----------



## Seig (Jan 9, 2004)

I keep seeing a lot of references from Robert about corporations pushing guns on consumers.  Outside of specifically gun and hunting magazines or hunting television shows, just how many advertisements do you see for guns?  I don't see a Glock ad while I am watching CSI or a Ruger ad during JAG.  I haven't seen a Remington firearms ad during Navy CIS.  Where does this statement of yours come from?

People buy guns because they want them, not because they are pushed on them.  I am a zealous gun owner, I have them, I like them, I buy them, and I will buy more of them.  No one is pushing me into this.  I have complied with all applicable laws in my purchasing, ownership and carrying.  What have I done wrong to justify someone else deciding I shouldn't have them and thus being enabled to take them away from me?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2004)

But aren't you now making two different arguements.

1 - You think Gun Manufactures don't market their products.
2 - You should be able to own as many guns as you want.

In response to (1); Of course gun manufactures push their wares. It is no different than McDonalds. If you make something that you want to sell, you have 'marketing' departments devise ways of informing consumers of their need for your product. In the firearms arena, you market your product in hunting and fishing magazines (for one example). If you run a karate studio, don't you hang out a shingle somewhere? metaphorically speaking?

In response to (2); rmcrobertson was pointing out an inconsistancy that many things are 'regulated' by the state ... without 'prohibiting' them, or 'confiscating' them ... and some feel this is not inconsistant with the 2nd amendment. For instance, I need to license my dogs with the city. I have no fear of the city coming and taking my dogs away.

But more importantly than that, (and on topic), the current administration in the executive branch of our government seems to be regulating (prohibiting) protest speech that might a)be seen by the POTUS or VP, or b) be seen in a media shot of the POTUS or VP on the evening news. 

If you strongly believe your second arguement, you must believe that the adminstration is wrong in its 'issueing a permit' to the protestors, and directing those protestors where to stand as the motorcade, and tv cameras go by, right?

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 9, 2004)

I think it's clear that he stated they do market their products in hunting magazines and during hunting TV shows...but everyting is up to interpretation I guess.

But I think the logic has to go both ways...

Why do people want to restrict guns so much and not free speech?

Granted there are things today you can't say that you did in the 60's down south...


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 9, 2004)

Firearm manufacturures at this time are not spending the budget on large ad campaigns to market their products. You don't see gun companies advertising outside of their niche markets; a sign or logo displayed on a box or at a gun show, or gun magazines. It's not to say that mass advertizing will never happend, but it just isn't happening right now.

Now, does gun regulation hurt gun companies? Yes...so they will naturally push for deregulation, and they will naturally be proponents of those ideals. Anyone who thinks differently on this one has had the wool pulled over their eyes.

Also, the desire to buy more and more "toys" (even if its to serve a "masculine" need to have bigger, stronger, tougher weapons, tools etc.) is definatily consumerism. I say that this isn't the fault of the gun companies, but rather an inherited flaw in our system that would need to be changed from the inside out. The double edged sword of living in a country that is supposed to be "free" is that people have the right to ''Buy more" if they want. I don't like consumerism, but I like living in a free country. The solution to the problem is more structural, rather then regulatory.

PAUL


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Why do people want to restrict guns so much and not free speech?*



Because Sticks and Stones do break bones.

I think this is a very clear, cogent question.  And, I think it was the questions Michael Moore asked in the film 'Bowling for Columbine'. I know we all were reading that thread at one point or another ... so please ... let's not re-tread it in this thread.

We do not have the Freedom of Speech to yell 'Fire' in a crowded movie house. And I think, we should not be free to do so.

Yet, many of the so-called 'self-proclaimed gun-nuts' protest strongly when there is a call for any restriction on gun ownership. This dicotomy is the issue at hand.

I do not, and in all likelyhood will never, own a firearm. I do believe that those of you who do own them should be trained, certified and licensed. I do believe that you should be able to own as many weapons as you wish, although, I suppose there should be some limit in the maximum clip size and / or fire rate ... but I really don't know enough about firearms to be able to describe what would be 'prudent'  (gee ... I used a Bushism  )

I do lastly believe that I am indeed safer in my non-gun-owning home while there is a second amendment. It just seems to me that some limits are not unreasonable. 

Ready - Aim - Fire ---- Mike


----------



## MountainSage (Jan 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson, be careful, liberal and libertarian are two different horses.  Social similar, but not the same.  Touch O' Death, isn't it fun to watch eastern liberals and closet liberals argue.  Where Kaith on this one?

Mountainsage


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *Where Kaith on this one?
> 
> Mountainsage *



Staying in the closet.


----------



## Seig (Jan 10, 2004)

You can do it Bob, come out of the closet.
:roflmao:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> *rmcrobertson, be careful, liberal and libertarian are two different horses.  Social similar, but not the same.  *



A mix of both is best.  It is kind of like Odin, riding into battle on two horses, one foot in each stirrup.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Jan 10, 2004)

The modern definition of "liberal" -- totalitarian statism -- is antithetical to libertarianism, whereas libertarianism is essentially what "liberal" means in its _classical_ sense.  A "mix of both" is simply a contradictory mess of principles that don't work together -- akin to "a little slavery" or "an acceptable amount of tyranny."


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 10, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil _
> *The modern definition of "liberal" -- totalitarian statism *



Please direct me to the source of this 'modern' definition. I have been unable to find it.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 10, 2004)

This article explains the shifting definitions of liberalism and conservatism.

At the rate liberalism is changing however, Phil's post adequately describes where it's heading, if not already.

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_1708.shtml


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 10, 2004)

A small, socially conscious government is a mix of liberalism and libertarianism.  Neither system will work on its own.  The world isn't a place of absolutes that never mix.  Gray exists.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_1708.shtml *



WelL, I read it. I find the article not particularly enlightening. He reaches conclusions that he did not support in his discussion. There is very little discussion about why conservatism is what it is, it only argues that conservatism is the opposite of liberalism, which as I mentioned, he doesn't define very well.

I understand that in a 1000 word article, it is difficult to define such advanced topics, but this, I think, is a poor example.

Rest assure, as a self-proclaimed liberal, this definition is nothing like my own.

Thanks - Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 11, 2004)

Well, while I can see why a liberal would see the need for everything to be advanced and complicated, I don't think seperating the ideologies is.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2004)

No .. you see it is not 'advanced and complicated' ... it is 'defined'. what the article defines in 'idealogue' ... which is defined as a blindly partisan advocate. 

Here is a better definition, I think. Oh, yeah, and this one is from a dictionary.

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al 
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 11, 2004)

Well, while I do not define myself as politically liberal, I will note that defining modern liberals as, "totalitarian statists," is absurd. And neither wishing, nor yelling, will not make it so.

It occurs to me that there are two senses of, "liberal," at stake here. One is political: I'd suggest reading a little Daniel Bell. The other is intellectual and even emotional: we're talking about "liberal," as something of a synonym for "humanist:" the virture of liberalism are tolerance, open-mindedness, etc., all no doubt Very Bad Things.

The only way that "liberal," may be interpreted as leading to totaliarianism is if one buys the ideological statements that the likes of Limbaugh, Savage, etc., have been making over the last twenty-some years. After all, Franklin, Jefferson et. al. were liberal-minded men...

As for totaliarianship, well, poppycock. Name ONE liberal democracy that was dictatorial, except by the more-crackpot right-wing definitions of allowing black people to vote, not shoving fundamentalist Christian prayer down kids' throats in school, etc. 

If you want something to worry about, I recommend either a) fascism, especially of the theological variety; or b) Foucault's carceral society. 

As for quarantining dissent, well, the historical trend over the last fifty years has clearly been towards quarantining and censoring dissent on the grounds of some fantasy of, "national security." Sorry, but for all the "PC," idiots (fewer than suspected, I might add), this has since Hoover and McCarthy largely been a right-wing enterprise. 

But you can also see very clear marks of who's trying censoring whom on the last six months of threads here. I've read again and again and again that certain views are, "traitorous," or just something that one just shouldn't be saying given the times. I've read again and again and again claims that so-and-so is stupid and should shut up, as well as personal attacks on people's character, and those sure as hell ain't coming from liberals.


----------



## MountainSage (Jan 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson,  I love the way liberals use Franklin and Jefferson as examples to defend their position.  These men were Libertarian, not Liberals.  Liberals generally believe in equalizing the playing field at any cost with the govt. making the decision about what is equal and who has more than another.  Libertarians believe more in freedom of choice and living with the results of those choices.  If I walk down the street with a gun, that is my choice, if I shoot someone while walking that is also my choice, but I must accept the results of my actions. Jefferson and Franklin believed in individual rights with emphasis on individual responsiblity.  Liberals have fall short on the individual responsibility area. Jefferson and Franklin were both strong state's rights people, so how can they be liberal.

Mountainsage


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 11, 2004)

Sorry, but please read what I wrote. I separated, "political," liberalism from, "humanist," liberalism. The first is a particular political party--English in origin I believe, which didn't come around until what...the late nineteenth century? 

The latter sense applies rather nicely to Franklin and Jefferson, who certainly seem to me to have worked out of the sort of "broad-mindedness," that I'd associate with liberalism.

As for being a liberal, for the nineteen-thousandth time, I am not politically speaking a liberal: for example, I though Walter Mondale and Hubert Horatio Humphrey were both schmucks.

You're working, I'm afraid, out of a gimcrack definition of liberalism. Nor do I think that you really want to ride that, "state's rights," train very far, considering that its historical stops included the Confederacy, Jim Crow laws, and segregationism in all its forms.

Yes, liberals such as Daniel Bell tend to shift towards the, "big government," side of the spectrum. That's because a) local gov't, historically speaking, has a very poor record with some laws--like civil rights legislation and EPA regs that we have to have, b) corporations (as the last two years should pretty well illustrate, and does anybody in faavor of letting the market police itself have family in Bhopal, India?), c) regrettably, the world's gotten pretty big and complex. Are they always right? Absolutely not. But make no mistake, most of the folks who are yelling about the EPA are shilling for corporations. Look at states like West Virginia, treated so very well by coal companies and local politicians...

As I've mentioned before, there's a pretty nice, "pox on both their houses," argument in the first couple chapters of Cornell West's "Race Matters." West is pretty smart aand pretty lucid about the sterility of arguing liberal vs. conservative, even if he was dumb enough to play Councellor West in the last two really, really crappy, "Matrix," movies...


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 11, 2004)

> _Originally posted by MountainSage _
> * Liberals have fall short on the individual responsibility area. *



Hey all .. I am the self-proclaimed liberal in the group. I do not believe that I fall short on individual responsibility. As long as you are viewing liberalism through the 'Rush Limbaugh Lens', of course that is what you are going to think. 

I do not think conservatives are all gun toting doctor shooting anti-abortionist nut-cases.  It would be nice, if you conservatives would extend as much careful thought about those of a more societal opinion.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

Submitted for your enlightenment


Three protesters arrested 


[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*By ANDREW NELSON,* *Telegraph Staff*
nelsona@telegraph-nh.com
[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published: Friday, Mar. 26, 2004[/font] 


http://nsimg.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=NS&Date=20040326&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=203260348&Ref=AR&border=0&MaxW=200 
*Staff photo by kevin jacobus *
Nashua police officers pick up Betty Hall of Brookline after she apparently refused to get out of her chair and move to a spot designated for protesters on Amherst Street in Nashua, across from New Hampshire Community Technical College. President Bush made a campaign stop there Thursday. 
[font=verdana,sans-serif]Order this picturehttp://java_script_:NewWindow(600,6...326&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=203260348&Ref=AR'); [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NASHUA - Three protesters, including a prominent resident of Brookline, were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct during President Bushs visit to New Hampshire Community Technical College.

The three protesters refused to move out of a safety zone and away from the intersection of Amherst Street and Deerwood Drive, police Lt. Bruce Hansen said.

Officers carried Betty Hall, 83, of Brookline, away in her chair after she refused to cooperate.

Hall, who held a sign that declared, Bush is bad for America, is a member of the Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School Board and a former state representative who served 12 terms in the House.

The two others arrested were Howard Morse, 72, of Amherst, and Valerie Farrell, 54, of Merrimack.

Morse and Farrell were part of a larger group of protesters at the intersection of Amherst Street and Deerwood Drive on Thursday afternoon, across the street from the college. They were the only two remaining after officers ordered the group to move to the front of the Fleet Bank branch on Amherst Street, away from the intersection.

Morse said they were a conducting a peaceful assembly. Farrell, a massage therapist, said the afternoon rally was the first time she had participated in a protest since the 1960s.

Hall was arrested later, while sitting on the front lawn of the Fleet Bank branch, but closer to the intersection than the rest of the protesters.

Hansen said the three were charged with the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct.

He said the Secret Service designates a certain area in the vicinity of a visiting president as a safety zone. People have to be outside the designated zone, and then they are free to protest, Hansen said.

Hall, who has difficulty walking, said she had already complied with two requests from police to move when officers asked her to move again. She said they did not give her a good reason.

I said no. I didnt want to move. I didnt see why I had to, Hall said.

I did not agree to walk to the police car, and they picked me up and carried me, she said. I didnt fight them at all.

Hall, Morse and Farrell were taken to the Hudson Police Department to be booked because all of Nashuas officers were busy with the presidential detail, Hansen said.

I took a nice nap in the jail cell, Hall said. It was very comfortable, very clean. Ive stayed in much worse hotels.

She said she was upset about being charged with disorderly conduct because she felt she was very pleasant and peaceful toward the officers.

Hall has been involved with politics for 50 years, and said she has never been arrested before.

Ive been to lots of rallies. Ive never encountered this kind of a problem, she said.

She was held at the Hudson station for about two hours before her son bailed her out, she said.

He was really very amused, Hall said. I think its kind of funny myself.

Andrew Nelson can be reached at 594-6415 or nelsona@telegraph-nh.com. Andrea Bushee can be reached at 594-5860 or busheea@telegraph-nh.com.[/font]


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 26, 2004)

Did you hear about the women who had their signs taken and torn by the Kerry campaign? I guess it was't a good idea to bring the pro-life message to the rally.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat395.html

http://www.worldmagblog.com/archives/001912.html


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

I was reprimanded by a fellow poster on this board for posting a link from 'The Nation' because it was not a 'fair and balanced' point of view. The same thing for this post ... those links are arguing from a specific point of view ... which I welcome.

Shame on the Kerry staffer. Hopefully, that staff person has been appropriately reprimanded, (in private) and it won't happen again. 

As a democrat, let me say that if you are 'Pro-Life' you are welcome, as the adage goes "If you are against abortion, don't have one."

Ms. Hall, from the article I posted, is somewhat of a well known person in the town of Brookline, and the surrounding communities, a town of approximately 4200 people.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

It's funny how a persons social status, revealed in an article after the fact but not known in the moment, is an excuse to refuse compliance because "they didn't get a good reason."  Remember a bombing during the Atlanta Olympics, or the abortion center bombings?  Standard operating procedure to try and create distance between percieved threats - and yes even a granny can be carrying a bomb, gun... an assault rifle looks meaner than a lever action, but they can both shoot .223 cal just as well.  If you are obviously dissatisfied because you are openly critical/protesting you have met a profile criteria for a possible threat.  Would you leave your child, a person you are responsible to protect, within arms length of a person who is waving a sign and stating openly that they hate kids?

And sometimes, granny is used as a mule, unknowingly carrying or coerced into carrying an explosive (remember the pizza delivery guy with an explosive around his neck who was forced to rob a bank?).

Is the 'out of the site of the POTUS/PRESS' coincidentally also the recommended or practical safe distance that would protect the POTUS from an explosive, chemical or firearm attack as well?  Agendas, agendas.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

I'm sorry folks ... You guys sound as if you are brainwashed .. ..

The Woman Served for 12 terms in the New Hampshire House of Representatives for Christ Sake... She had already complied with their requests twice.

Who was that was complaining that if you don't participate by voting or serving you shouldn't be able to criticize?

I show how that state is suppressing free speech ... (Secret Service moving protestors) ... and get rebutted by 'A staffer tore up a sign'. ... Come 'on .. 

No doubt .. .. Ms. Hall is keeping all of Mr. Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in her basement .. 


And yes ... Paul ... there is a bit of 'Tone' in this message. Because, it seems as if you have left the ability to reason somewhere else this morning. Is there anything this administration can do that would cause you to say .. 'gee that's wrong' .... Maybe a hummer in the oval office?


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> And yes ... Paul ... there is a bit of 'Tone' in this message. Because, it seems as if you have left the ability to reason somewhere else this morning. Is there anything this administration can do that would cause you to say .. 'gee that's wrong' .... Maybe a hummer in the oval office?




Yup, just the same way that past administrations have done things that I could say "that was wrong" too.  But to attack basic security procedures is digging as far as I am concerned.  The POTUS does not come up with these Standard Operating Procedures, security specialists develop them and supervisors approve of them.  After training in PSD/Executive Security and such first hand (never had to do the job, but was oriented on it), the principle - in this case the POTUS - can chaif all he wants, but the security team dictates security.  They don't have to like it, but they do have to adhere to it.  Stories in Secret Service circles are rampant of the Clintons absolutely HATING secret service presense - Hillary is reputed to have told a secret service agent who moved in front of her to open a door to "get the 'F*&K' out of" her way.  She didn't like it but they were a required frustration.

The biggest failing I can see in the current adminstration is to clearly demonstrate a lack of interest in humanitarian support/policies/incentives foreign and domestic.  In true old school Republican form, money is the answer to everything.  School voucher systems as an educational incentive, give a cash back tax incentive (ohhh! $500 dollars, that solves the social services/support problem), supporting business and the middle american eco strata (because they are statistically the strongest voting population, win/lose sway demographic).  Yes the war on terrorism is important, yes the war in Iraq needs to be resolved quickly - and was spun to be linked to the Afg. campaign, but information and discussion of domestic reforms - if any - other than Patriot Act stuff would be nice.

Converesly, prior adminstrations have been guilty of putting too much incentive/faith in building the domestic at the expense of foriegn diplomacy/security - consequences 9/11 and a lack of Mid East intelligence networks.  Complain... complain...complain... what can we do about it other than vote, run for office, exercise lawful protest.

Criticising Secret Service for enforcing/implimenting security policies is like attacking troops for fighting the war.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 26, 2004)

> Hall, who has difficulty walking, said she had already complied with two requests from police to move when officers asked her to move again. She said they did not give her a good reason.



Well, um, that's just tough titty. I don't see why people come crying every time some idgit refuses to follow orders, rules, regulations, laws, and all that other fluff that society puts in place. Gosh life would just be so much easier.

Oh, what was it that the pro-life sign holders were doing wrong? Seemingly nothing since no major news corp decided to cover it.

And why can't these Bush protesters at least put something of substance on their signs, like "No Defense" or "Tax Us More" or "Buy me medicine" rather than "Bush is bad for America."


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, um, that's just tough titty. I don't see why people come crying every time some idgit refuses to follow orders, rules, regulations, laws, and all that other fluff that society puts in place. Gosh life would just be so much easier.
> 
> Oh, what was it that the pro-life sign holders were doing wrong? Seemingly nothing since no major news corp decided to cover it.
> 
> And why can't these Bush protesters at least put something of substance on their signs, like "No Defense" or "Tax Us More" or "Buy me medicine" rather than "Bush is bad for America."



Amen, MM, this harkens to TGACE's comment about tone:  bash the power as opposed to reform/improve the status quo.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> And why can't these Bush protesters at least put something of substance on their signs, like "No Defense" or "Tax Us More" or "Buy me medicine" rather than "Bush is bad for America."


Could it be that thoughtful loyal opposition can't reduce comments to four words, like 'My Abortion Hurt Me' (which I point out, the person stating this at least had the legal right to that procedure - how much more might it hurt, if an abortion had to be performed with the threat of prosecution?).

It's kind of difficult to put on a sign ... 

" Mr. President, you told us that we needed to invade Iraq in order to prevent Iraqi terrorists from striking at the United States with a Nuclular weapon (smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud). We have had soldiers looking in that country now for more than 8 months, we have assembled many of the high-ranking Iraqi officials for questioning, we have offered them money to assist us, and yet there seem to be no weapons of mass destruction. Can you explain to me, Mr. President, why our soldiers are being killed and wounded for something you call 'Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activities'?

Mister President ... what exactly is a Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Program Activity? .... Is that, like a drawing, on a piece of scrap paper, as to what an atomic weapon might look like when attached to a missle?"

Or

" Mr. President, Did you know, as the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives were twisting arms, and holding the roll call vote open for 12 times *longer* than allowed by the house rules in order to coerce a YEA vote on your Medicare Perscription Drug plan, that this plan was going to INCREASE the size of government, and that your numbers were incorrect *by more than 100 billion dollars*? Did you know you were lying about that too?"


mike


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Could it be that thoughtful loyal opposition can't reduce comments to four words, like 'My Abortion Hurt Me' (which I point out, the person stating this at least had the legal right to that procedure - how much more might it hurt, if an abortion had to be performed with the threat of prosecution?).
> 
> It's kind of difficult to put on a sign ...
> 
> ...



MM's examples got the point across clearly to me - and were far shorter than yours.  Three words or one hundred, isn't it ironic that the same little old granny who is carrying a sign with 'Bush is Bad for America' on it will tell her grandchildren that it is wrong to use character attacks like 'you stink' when they are fighting amongst themselves?  As parents, we are advised to say that what you are doing is bad, not that you are bad.... wouldn't that be the same point that MM is making.  Fix the problem, not the blame?  Same tactic, different scale.

If we are critical of the character and faults of our officials, but are guilty of the same faults in our forms of protest, how much better will we be when said group get into power....same faults different goals.

I am looking at this story from the perspective of security and procedure, and I see protection as the primary motivation - based on the info in the article.  Notice no interview or sound bytes from a Secret Service or gov press rep is in the article.  If you are looking for incidents of opression, everything will look like it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 26, 2004)

Can somebody tell me why spend is better than tax and spend. I'm just a dumb hick up here in Spokane Falls. It just seems that reducing the quality of living for your children, in the future, is more sinster than balacing the budget when you can.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2004)

Security, my ***. And if you guys can't recognize a deliberate, overt, decided-from-the-top attack on civil liberties when one runs up and smacks you in the face with a wheelchair, y'all need to go back and read a little.

I particularly liked the hilarious assertion--thank you, Michael Savage--that this was All OK Because They Use Grannies To Carry Bombs All The Time. Have you lost your mind? 

Still, congrats on finding the same excuses that these clowns have been using since the days of the Tsars and their worthy successors, the NKVD. And how ARE you doing with the collected works of Lavrenti Beria?

If you go back and look at the LA convention in 2000 when the Republicans--and it was the Republicans--started this nonsense, it was explicitly done to keep certain viewpoints swept out of the TV coverage.

Aren't you guys the crowd that gets yer back all up whenever anybody restricts gun rights? What's the deal--guns si, speech nyet? 

It just astonishes me. Apparently some of you think that free speech and dissent mean that everybody has a right to agree with you. Apparently, some of you cannot tell the difference between personal attack (ad hominem arguments...look it up) and discussion, heated or otherwise, of ideas. 

Take a gander at the recent Clark thing on Bush, Clinton, and what they laughably call, "our security." I see everybody's pissed at Clark...as they should be, since he's got 'em...but Clinton's arguing the issues and facts, while Bush's henchies, like Rice, are attacking the man personally. And yes, there's a difference between some idiot getting stupid at a Kerry rally and attacking a protester who has every right to be there, and the Bush people deliberately going after any and all protest, with the aid of cops and the Secret Service.

You might wonder why it is that Kerry keeps getting confronted by Bush supporters at his rallies, and Bush never seems to have to answer indignant questions from some disgruntled Democrat. Too damn bad if they're embarassed...both SHOULD be embarassed...but could it be that the two campaigns have different policies about dealing with opposition? 

Shame on you for attacking the right of Americans to peaceably assemble and protest policies with which they profoundly disagree. I guess that's one of those liberal thingies we should abolish...

Thanks, though. Nothing is funnier than reading the intellectual/political contortions of people who are trying to justify having the cops haul off an 84-year-old woman in a wheelchair because she's holding a protest sign. Especially when they've previously been arguing that Liberals Are Going To Take Over the Country and Crush Our Liberties.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2004)

Oh, and while we're putting the Real deal on signs, how 'bout:

THANKS FOR TAXING US LESS AT A FEDERAL LEVEL IN THE WAKE OF REAGAN'S "NEW FEDERALISM," WHICH HAS LEFT THE COUNTRY WITH FEWER AND FEWER SERVICES, FEWER COPS AND FIREMEN, MORE CLOSED LIBRARIES AND ART PROGRAMS, FEWER TEACHERS AND DOCTORS, FEWER STUDENTS, WHILE SIMULTANEOULSLY JACKING UP ALL SORTS OF COSTS LIKE "FOREST ADVENTURE," PASSES SO NOW WE HAVE TO PAY FOR WHAT OUR TAX DOLLARS USED TO COVER. THANKS FOR JACKING UP OUR LOCAL TAXEES AND FEES BEYOND BELIEF SO WE CAN HAVE FRILLS LIKE SEWERS AND FIRE HYDRANTS. THANKS, TOO, FOR CUTTING REGULATORY AGENCIES SO WE PAY MORE FOR POWER, WATER, MEDICINES AND EVERY OTHER FRICKIN' THING, AND YOU AND YOUR  BUDDIES GROW WEALTHIER. THANKS FOR 'TORT REFORM,' WHICH MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO SUE AFTER ONE OF YOUR CRONIES' COMPANIES SOLD POORLY-TESTED DRUGS TO MY SISTER AND HER ELDEST DAUGHTER DIED. THANKS FOR CLEVERLY SHIFTING BLAME ONTO SO-CALLED 'LIBERALS,' WHILE MAKING IT HARDER TO GET ACCESS TO EDUCATION SO PEOPLE COULD FIGURE THINGS OUT. OH YEAH, AND THANKS FOR THE UNNECESSARY AND UNDECLARED WAR, WHICH WILL LEAVE THE MID-EAST IN WORSE SHAPE OVER TIME, BUT WHICH WE WON'T CARE ABOUT BECAUSE WE'LL BE GONE. AND PPS, MY GRANDDAUGHTER THANKS YOU FOR STICKING HER WITH THE BILLS FOR TOYS LIKE THE B-2 AT TWO BIL A COPY, AS WELL AS THE COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE SYSTEMS THAT YOU GUTTED SO YOU AND YOUR CRONIES IN THE SUCCESSORS TO TYCO AND ENRON AND BECHTEL COULD MAKE A FEW GOOD BUCKS. HER DAUGHTER THANKS YOU, TOO, FOR THE ATTITUDE OF TOTAL CYNICISM ABOUT POLITICS AND PATRIOTISM, AFTER YOU TURNED SUCH HONORABLE IDEAS INTO OBVIOUS CHEAP COVERS FOR YOUR OWN GREED AND STUPIDITY.

Which 84-year-old's gonna carry that one? Jack LaLane?


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 26, 2004)

Oh brother. Thank goodness less and less people are buying that crap, and it didn't take them "8 yeas o' grad' skool" ta figure it out.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Security, my ***. And if you guys can't recognize a deliberate, overt, decided-from-the-top attack on civil liberties when one runs up and smacks you in the face with a wheelchair, y'all need to go back and read a little.
> 
> I particularly liked the hilarious assertion--thank you, Michael Savage--that this was All OK Because They Use Grannies To Carry Bombs All The Time. Have you lost your mind?
> 
> ...



Never said had to agree with me, and I would think that waving guns within effective range of the POTUS or Kerry or who ever Secret Service is appointed to protect, would be part of the criteria for 'moving them out of range' as well.... I happen to remember a protester who got right on stage with the POTUS during a speech years back (don't remember the POTUS right now, because I was looking at it from a martial/security view, first.)  

Again, how many people here, whining about civil liberties and such have ever had to do/been trained in executive protection/personnel security?  What measures would you take to ensure the protection of your children. Similiar mentallity with different dangers.  Never said that it happens all the time, but gee whiz didn't really consider a commercial jet as a flying gas bomb either did we?

You are looking at it from ONE perspective of reasoning - the infringement of amendment rights.  Okay, I can see it from that perspective, but if that is the case, write a press release, get the news to cover an event you are having and GO FOR IT!  No one is telling these people that they can't EVER present their issues, just not within a threat distance to 'my principle'.

I am presenting it from another perspective - security.  That means that you research/study the assasination/terrorist trends in the world, the capabilities of theoretical attacks and implementations of tactics and strategies that minimize the threat to the principle.  I am discussing this single incident, not a 'conspiracy of silencing' a groups right to protest.  Any outside details are an attempt to put a security consideration perspective on my point of view on this incident.

Disagreement yes, not claiming that you HAVE to agree with me.  How hillarious is it to consider to think that an attack on your principle can be disguised as anything/anyone in a world where suicide bombers pose for pictures with their children infront of flags like team shots for youth sports, bombs have been used to disrupt Olympic events, ....

Before the paranoia fingers start pointing at me, remember that this same 'lyfestyle' of martial arts/self defense we claim to live has been criticized and I/we have been accused of living in fear, when I don't really feel afraid BECAUSE I have trained to develop confidence in my ability to be calm/adaptive and appropriate under pressure.  Distance control in sparring/street pre-contact scenarios is standard for us when we percieve a threat.  Why should it be any different for a team of professionals who make it their job to keep a principle alive?


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> MM's examples got the point across clearly to me - and were far shorter than yours.


But the point, as expressed in three words is not accurate ... and probably not even truthful. Which is what I think I said.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Again, how many people here, whining about civil liberties and such have ever had to do/been trained in executive protection/personnel security?


So only those who have been trained in executive protection are eligable for civil rights ... Got It!



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> What measures would you take to ensure the protection of your children.


No measures available can provide total protection. With liberties come risks, I understand this.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> No one is telling these people that they can't EVER present their issues, just not within a threat distance to 'my principle'.


You can not practice the first amendment right of Freedom of Speech if there is no one around to hear you.


Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2004)

Dear Mike:

Once again, I apologize for having read books. I apologize, too, for knowing what I'm talking about, and for presenting a, "liberal," argument that favored neither political party and militated for free speech for everybody.

Sincerely,
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, AKA John Kerry.

Dear "loki:"

And also my apologies. I should've realized that all those right-wing NRA types, abortion protesters, states'-rights guys, paramilitary Christians, and others whose signs we see so frequently around Hizzoner would never, never, never pose any sort of physical threat. It really IS just necessary to watch out for the elderly in wheelchairs.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen
Waco, Texas


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> So only those who have been trained in executive protection are eligable for civil rights ... Got It!
> 
> You can not practice the first amendment right of Freedom of Speech if there is no one around to hear you.
> 
> Mike



Not the point, only that to really appreciate the possible motives/intentions other than Quarantine of Dissent, like security, some experience in another perspective is helpful.

And there are a lot of other options other than waving a poster in front of the POTUS to get attention/voice your opinions.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Dear Mike:
> Dear "loki:"
> 
> And also my apologies. I should've realized that all those right-wing NRA types, abortion protesters, states'-rights guys, paramilitary Christians, and others whose signs we see so frequently around Hizzoner would never, never, never pose any sort of physical threat. It really IS just necessary to watch out for the elderly in wheelchairs.
> ...



Again, we are discussing a neat little article that got the publisher and the lady a lot of attention, with out presenting the complete story -from both sides.  Is this the type of ranting that I use to hear from those I was issuing tickets on base during my MP days?  Why yes, "don't tell me what to do (even though your job is to exercise authority to do your job) but give me what I want (because I pay your salary), keep channeling those dead Romans.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 26, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Not the point, only that to really appreciate the possible motives/intentions other than Quarantine of Dissent, like security, some experience in another perspective is helpful.
> 
> And there are a lot of other options other than waving a poster in front of the POTUS to get attention/voice your opinions.



No Loki, other perspectives are NOT ALLOWED in the Study forum.

Hehe, seriously, a granny was hauled off - point taken. That being: If you are going to stand in the way of a presidential motorcade, plan on staring thru some bars for the evening. Sign or no sign, it wasn't the area she was supposed to be in. I don't think it is too hard to comprehend. 

Does anyone even think that the police (because it was the local police) are going to have some responsibility if an attempt to harm the president is successfull. I don't blame them for not playing games, and when you've already been asked twice to get out of the way, well...shouldn't take a lot of explaining. Police shouldn't be in the biz of babysitting.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2004)

Hate to mention reality, but the picture posted showed her on the grass, out of the way. 

Jimmy Carter woulda got out of the limo, apologized, and asked if he could get by if he had to. But then, he and his wife walked through town to get to the Inauguration, and he's a Christian. 

Love that Imperial Presidency! "POTUS?" Light on the Tom Clancy, eh? This is George Bush Jr. we're talking about, ain't it?


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 26, 2004)

So do you have a better idea of how to define a safe zone for the president?

Where would you draw the line, at the edge of the lawn, the curb, the roadway shoulder or breakdown lane?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So do you have a better idea of how to define a safe zone for the president?
> 
> Where would you draw the line, at the edge of the lawn, the curb, the roadway shoulder or breakdown lane?


Well, for a man as polarizing as GWB, there is no safe zone.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If you are going to stand in the way of a presidential motorcade, plan on staring thru some bars for the evening.


She was not standing in front of a presidential motorcade. She was on a lawn adjacent to the road.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> I don't blame them for not playing games, and when you've already been asked twice to get out of the way, well...shouldn't take a lot of explaining.


She had been asked to move twice ..*AND*.. she moved twice. It wasn't as if she declined their invitation to move.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> So do you have a better idea of how to define a safe zone for the president?


 
*MARS!*

for this president, anyway.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *MARS!*
> 
> for this president, anyway.



 :rofl: 

Ah well...at least you haven't lost you're sense of humor.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2004)

Let's see if I've got this straight...Hizzoner sneaks into Iraq, prefectly OK, acceptable risk. Hizzoner lands on a carrier for a trumped-up photo op, not a problem, safety-wise. But let there be an 84-year-old in a wheelchair on the side of the road, bothering nobody but holding a placard...now THERE'S danger.

Ya know, Clinton's government didn't seem to spend a lot of time sweeping dissenters out of the way. If I recollect, we saw contra posters all the time. Reagan didn't do it either, did he?

It's shameful, and defending this on the grounds of trumped-up security concerns is shameful.


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 26, 2004)

Oh my gosh..cue the sorrowful violin music and hand me a box of tissues...

Obviously some people will never understand just how things have changed after 9/11.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 26, 2004)

You know .. the irony just hit me.

Betty Hall, the Octegenarian arrested yesterday in Nashua, New Hampshire has held elective office *longer* than the President she was protesting.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2004)

1. Yes, that is passing strange. There's the enemy, though--a hard-headed old biddy from New England. Good for her.

2. How much the world has changed. Bushwa. Unless of course you choose to believe, with the Michael Savages of the world, that your fellow Americans are the enemy. Amazing and disturbing that Americans now claim to have no problems with the image of three cops grabbing an old lady in a wheelchair holding a sign, whatever's on the sign, whether she's right or wrong.

It's stuff like this that makes me recall the moment in Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," where a Navy Chief, watching about ten jackbooted American fascists beating an old man who's been peacefully protesting the US invasion of Mexico, wades in with both fists, saying, "Nine o'yuh to one grandpappy! Just about even!"

Good to know that in arguments, the moral aspect of martial arts goes right out the window. 

Hey, I know. Let's hear some arguments about how it's become OK for soldiers and cops to torture suspects, given the national emergency.

I realize this is a bit pompous, but I do not care for the spectacle of Americans arguing for squashing dissent and dragging old ladies away to the pokey for exercising their Consitutional rights. Silly me...must be that liberalism. 

You're arguing an absolutely indefensible position, you know. Barrry Goldwater must be spinning like an isotope separator...


----------



## MisterMike (Mar 26, 2004)

And for even more "irony" isn't it strange that the same people who argue against profiling have their panties in a bunch over this arrest.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 27, 2004)

Rob wrote"

"Hey, I know. Let's hear some arguments about how it's become OK for soldiers and cops to torture suspects, given the national emergency."


What can you say to this stuff that hasn't been said before....

"I hate to tell you guys, but we ain't gonna last 17 minutes.  There gonna come in here, there gonna come in here and there gonna GET US..."

"Shut up, Hicks.  This little girl survived longer than that - and with no training"

"Why don't you put her it charge!"

"Hicks, get it together, I need blue prints, floor plans anything"

"Okay, I'm ON it"

"HICKS, cool out.."

The TAO of Ripley according to Aliens.  Interesting how even in "Liberal/Democratic/Tree huggy Hollywood" depictions/story telling of human interaction, those who focus on goals and plans instead of whining about the problems are 'main' characters, and the rest are supporting.  Of course, I don't think any of us would look nearly as good as Sigourny Weaver in our skivvies....please don't respond, the image would give me nightmares.


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 27, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Good to know that in arguments, the moral aspect of martial arts goes right out the window.
> 
> Hey, I know. Let's hear some arguments about how it's become OK for soldiers and cops to torture suspects, given the national emergency.
> 
> ...



So, because I recognize that professional martial artists (Secret Service/Military...) using their martial skill for real on a strategic/tactical level are applying the theory of distance control is immoral?  I would say that is a little more objective observation and not fear/hate induced subjectivity - something that mental and physical control of martial training is suppose to help develop.  I would love to play poker or sparr/fight you for money if you are this easy to inflame - talk about a lack of control.  You have called me and others stupid, immoral, warmongers, blind.... insulting someone's character because you don't agree is really moral.  Uh - oh, here comes the heat, now my pointed comment will be taken as an insult instead of an observation - 'this, sir, means war' - I love Bugs Bunny- modern adaptation of ancient Native American/Afro trickster symbolism. 

Indefensible argument....because you say so?   Because you believe everything you post to be true?  Sounds a little dictatorial/childish to me.  

"I'm right your wrong"
"Why?"
"Because I say so!"

Hail ROB!

If it ain't right for the POTUS (you were snide about this too) to be so brutish according to you, why is it okay for you to "TELL" us what is right or wrong?

This single scale/narrow observation of martial arts application is a perfect example of martial enthusiasts who think they are martial scholars commenting on tactics and strategies that they have little or no experience/knowledge.  The crap that we learn out here in the civilian world is BASED on the same principles of tactics that they use for real on a different scale everyday.

By the way, we are seeing you falling victim of emotional response/'telephone' game type of error here because she wasn't 'dragged off' from her own quotes, she didn't resist and they carried her off.  She herself said that she wasn't hurt or molested in anyway.

Ever see the "DOOMED" FED EX commercial? 
"I'm FINE" says the little lady

"She's in shock, we're all DOOMED"
"DOOMED"

sound familiar?

Let me elevate the discussion to the Rob level of debate:

NO, I'm right!  Tag your it.


----------



## Tgace (Mar 27, 2004)

Brother you kill me!!

:rofl:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 27, 2004)

Gee, speaking for the weenie point of view, I guess I thought that the purpose of martial arts, and of the military, was to protect little old ladies (however annoying) and the right of free speech/dissent. Thanks for the corrections, especially the ones based on some of my favorite movies. 

I'd also be curious to see exactly where I have called anybody "stupid, blind, warmonger." (Especially warmonger, one of the dumbest terms I know.) You are leaping to a guess about what you think I think; just because you can't argue without calling names, don't leap to the conclusion that that's what I'm doing. 

Glad to see, though, that the consensus logic is that of Good Old Uncle Joe Stalin. You know--"Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, so screw the kulaks."

And you bet I was snooty about the POTUS nonsense. His name's George (and that was a little old lady in a wheelchair, a fact y'all seem to find embarassing)...as Chuck Jones would be the first to tell ya. Go read his great autobiography. 

No more for me on this. Enjoy the continued trashing of American values in favor of the fantasy of absolute security....wait...didn't that dirty old man Ben Franklin have something to say about that? No...it was Jefferson: "The Tree of Liberty must continually be refreshed by hauling crippled old women off to the pokey."


----------



## loki09789 (Mar 27, 2004)

"Good to know that in arguments, the moral aspect of martial arts goes right out the window."

Implying that my argument is immoral.

"It's shameful, and defending this on the grounds of trumped-up security concerns is shameful."

Therefore I am acting shameful....

"Thanks, though. Nothing is funnier than reading the intellectual/political contortions of people who are trying to justify having the cops haul off an 84-year-old woman in a wheelchair because she's holding a protest sign"

If it is funny to you, we are ridiculous....

"Especially when they've previously been arguing that Liberals Are Going To Take Over the Country and Crush Our Liberties."

Not my stance

"Sorry, but for all the "PC," idiots (fewer than suspected, I might add),"

Well, that speaks for itself.

"You're working, I'm afraid, out of a gimcrack definition of liberalism."

Long winded way of saying your stupid

"Still, congrats on finding the same excuses that these clowns have been using since the days of the Tsars"

By association, I am a clown if I am using the 'same excuses'.  This is based on the Pax Americana argument that US is new ROME because we use the same structures and mechanisms...

"Apparently, some of you cannot tell the difference between personal attack (ad hominem arguments...look it up) and discussion, heated or otherwise, of ideas."

If we can't tell the difference, what are we then....Blind, stupid, manipulated, inferiors in perceptions/education/intellect relative to you?

"Hate to mention reality, but the picture posted showed her on the grass, out of the way"

As if we aren't looking realistically...

Dance on the edge of saying stupid by implying stupid and insulting, but it is not the grand leap that you want to claim.  I have been led to the water of insult and have drunk of the implications.  I don't think it is that hard to see.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 31, 2004)

A few points, Paul.

1.  I see your point regarding tone.  Shouting back at someone who shouts at you is not a very good way to operate...yet, nice people rarely get anything done.  Usually, they are tolerated until they get mean.  Then they get capped.  Case in point, MLK.

2.  Open minded people aren't always nice.  Especially when they see something that is an obvious attack on much of what they believe.

3.  This forum is such a small view of a person's life and personality.  Can you truly say that someone is doing "nothing but complaining about the system and doing nothing to change it" or is that just a stereotype on your part.  Are you so sure our rhetoric doesn't fit our actions?

4.  Why are you so certain that the status quo can be fixed through the ballot box?  I will quote Stalin for one example, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing.  Those who count the votes decide everything."  Another is readily available but often ignored fact that both Bush and Kerry are "Skull and Bones".

Perhaps it will be as Sharp Phil elucidated, "nothing will change" which is exactly my point.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2004)

Also, I see the whole security argument failing when pictures of people wearing pro-bush shirts are carrying various pro-bush paraphenalia are allowed to go about their business with little intervention.  The only people who are put into "free speech" zones are dissenters.

Lets assume it IS all about security though.  And an enterprising terrorist decides to take the president's life.  The plan is to go out and recruit a few clean cut, white, male and female suicide bombers.  Find a Bush rally in a cold climate outside.  Make a few puffy jackets emblazoned with American flags and pro-bush slogans.  Teach them the pro-bush rhetoric.  Strap them with some smooth body fitting explosives and zip up.  While the dissenters are waving their signs in the "free speech" zone, the terrorists are remotely detonated as they shake the president's hand in one of those phony political photo ops.

Sure there are a lot of ways they could get caught in this scenario, but the fact remains - there ARE two standards and these standards are readily visible in photos of pro-bush rallies.  If this was a security procedure, everyone should be treated the same.  Wake up.  THIS IS NOT HAPPENING!

upnorthkyosa


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If this was a security procedure, everyone should be treated the same.  Wake up.  THIS IS NOT HAPPENING!
> upnorthkyosa



Why should everyone be treated the same?  They should be scrutinized based on the same criteria, but treated differently depending on the way they come out on the check list.  Do you 'treat the same' the threat of a side kick, punch, gun.... or do you apply the same principles in ways that may look different because they are adapted to the situation or threat.

So, we go from opinion to assertion, based on a thin little article.

In executive security, even well wishers are kept at a distance, minimal safe distance.  Those who openly display a dissatisfaction will be kept farther away or removed - fitting a profile checklist that is standard to work from.  I don't know what their specific procedures are, but I am sure that they are well trained.

The photos and story don't talk about shaking babies and hand kissing or photo ops....

Not discounting the weakness of 'assuming' that those carrying pro Bush posters are all good, I am sure they are being scanned, sniffed and observed very closely with other measures as well as the distance control measure.

Again, a basic analogy is the admitted child hater near your child.  Would you leave him/her within arms reach of your toddler or keep him farther/move away?  And if another person was oowing and aahhing all over your child, you wouldn't just 'assume' that they were completely safe and leave your child free rolling with them, but you would be watchful as you let the distance control adjust to the percieved threat level....Doesn't sound that unreasonable or different from Martial/Military tactics on our individual level of training.  

I am looking at it from BOTH points of view, and in terms of 'crowd control' in this day and age, I see more security considerations in an age of chemical/bomb attacks.  I see this article, and incidents like this as humorous, but not the image of a 'boot stepping on the face' of freedom of speech or anything nearly that incidious.  So much for faith in man.

In this single incident, with only limited pictures of the total scene, and a very sketchy article on the story, it is much like your 'assumptions about the personality of the poster' comment - it is innaccurate to make judgement either way.  Thus, I am saying that I am looking at these measures and descriptions as security procedures based on the info at hand.

It would be interesting to see the protection plan of the Secret Service Protection team, advance and observation teams, along with the SOP's of the local LEO detail there to assist to get their perspectives on it, but that isn't going to happen.  

I wouldn't call the activation of National Guard/Reserves to beef up airport security, the restructuring of airport security procedures/individual checks.... as infringement.  Inconvenient yes, but I think this incident is a funny look at how the public on one hand wants to be ensured that protective measures are being taken, yet don't appreciate or understand what these steps really will look like.  A woman refused to move, she was removed.... oh well.  No one beat her up.  I don't know if she was told clearly where to move to, but if she wasn't told that clearly and moved to the subsequent locations based on her own initiative that is the fault of the people in charge of security for not communicating clearly from the beginning.  IF she did know where she was suppose to move to, ignored those instructions and went 'where ever she saw fit' and was asked to move because of it - she is demonstrating an uncooperative behavior - non violent, but uncooperative.

"This forum is such a small view of a person's life and personality. Can you truly say that someone is doing "nothing but complaining about the system and doing nothing to change it" or is that just a stereotype on your part. Are you so sure our rhetoric doesn't fit our actions?"

As far as your question/comment above, the 'nothing' was contextual to this forum.  And, base on the amount of responses specifying what people are 'doing', it seems like more complaining....

Back to my comment on all of this "it's only the internet" idea, Inegrity is what yo do when no one can see you... or there doesn't seem to be percieved 'consequences.'


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 1, 2004)

I think one of the main arguements is the discrimination factor.
Pro-whatevers are allowed near, Antis are restricted to 'pre-approved disent zones' that are often out of sight of those who the message must get to.

The gap in logic of the decision is also questionable. The idea that the Pros are 'safe' is inheritly flawed.

But, then again, so was the decision to remove the Secret Service screen, the protective top of the limo, and changing the security setup for JFK's drive through Dallas on that fateful day.

IF! I were to be intent on harm to a particular individual, it would only seem logical to dress myself up in their colors, spout their rhetoric and get as close as I can. A fast acting poison on a plastic blade and a quick strike seems to be all that is needed.  If I can see that, surely those who train for such things can see much more.  I highly doubt that some would-be assassin would draw major attention to themselves by wearing 'enemy' colors.

It is our right as Americans to protest, peacefully.  It is our right to say such wonderful things as "George Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to the US", and not be beaten, tortured, locked up and forgotten.....unless of course you are of Arab decent in which case you have no rights and deserve the rubber hose you murderous bastards.  (For those without a clue...that is sarcasm...I often find I must specify else be taken seriously.)

The President must speak with the voice of the people.  You know that "We The People" part so many forget about.  How can he do that if he is sheltered from the opposing voice? But, then again, the office of president was originally created to be a figurehead replacement for the king. Funny how over time, more and more "Kingly" powers have been granted.  How long before we do have a true American Imperium?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Again, a basic analogy is the admitted child hater near your child.  Would you leave him/her within arms reach of your toddler or keep him farther/move away?  And if another person was oowing and aahhing all over your child, you wouldn't just 'assume' that they were completely safe and leave your child free rolling with them, but you would be watchful as you let the distance control adjust to the percieved threat level....Doesn't sound that unreasonable.



It is unreasonable to have two standards of security for two types of people.  Profiling someone based on their political beliefs is completely anti-american and the anti-thesis of free speech.  

Also, I think you are assuming that I am referring to the article that was posted earlier.  In fact, I am not solely referring to that article.  The tone of my reference is more general.  Look at ANY pro-bush rally and you will see the same.  

This is not a security issue.  Terrorists are like water.  They find the easiest path.  If the easiest path is to pretend to be a pro-bush supporter, then that is what they will do.  The Secret Service should treat everyone the same in order to truly be SAFE.  That is not the case.  

Again, this is blatently quarentining dissent.  I also would like to see a brief protocal of SS procedure.  I would be willing to bet that everyone is treated equally.  They are being ordered by their bosses to form these "free speech" areas - its the only explanation that makes any sense when you really look at it from a security point of view.


----------



## someguy (Apr 1, 2004)

Are terrorists really like water though?  Water does not try to go with something spectacular some terrorists do.  
If your going to remove a group protesting you must also remove a group supporting.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 1, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It is unreasonable to have two standards of security for two types of people.  Profiling someone based on their political beliefs is completely anti-american and the anti-thesis of free speech.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 1, 2004)

This whole quarentining dissent term is really quite funny. Isn't what is actually going on is quarentining the President from the dissenters?

They can go anywhere they want, just not so close to him.

This President is fully aware of the protests and opposition at every turn he takes. Yet he does not read the papers, TV, internet news, etc. He has faith in what he is doing and will certainly own up to anything he has done come election time. And when that time comes, he has faith that the people of this country will vote him out if they like someone better or keep him in if they feel he made the right choices.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 1, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> This whole quarentining dissent term is really quite funny. Isn't what is actually going on is quarentining the President from the dissenters?
> 
> They can go anywhere they want, just not so close to him.
> 
> This President is fully aware of the protests and opposition at every turn he takes. Yet he does not read the papers, TV, internet news, etc. He has faith in what he is doing and will certainly own up to anything he has done come election time. And when that time comes, he has faith that the people of this country will vote him out if they like someone better or keep him in if they feel he made the right choices.



watch it MM, here come the "your only a programmed drone of the system because you don't agree with us" comments.

Wake UP!


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> watch it MM, here come the "your only a programmed drone of the system because you don't agree with us" comments.
> 
> Wake UP!



"Bring it on."


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 1, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> "Bring it on."



I'd love to consult my local Secret Service branch office for general info, but I would be afraid that, with some of the language/tone issues here combined with the martial arts image, that I might be asked to name names....

I am KIDDING...sort of....NO, really - they wouldn't do that....would they?....Nah!....Well, Mabye.....

See now they have me paranoid


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 1, 2004)

"The Secret Service does not discuss methods or means in any detail, however generally speaking, the advance team surveys each site to be visited. From these surveys, the members determine manpower, equipment, hospitals, and evacuation routes for emergencies. Fire, rescue, and other public service personnel in the community are alerted. A command post is established with full communications facilities. The assistance of the military, federal, state, county, and local law enforcement organizations is a vital part of the entire security operation.

Before the protectee's arrival, the lead advance agent coordinates all law enforcement representatives participating in the visit. Personnel are posted and are alerted to specific problems associated with the visit. Intelligence information is discussed, identification specified, and emergency options outlined. Prior to the arrival of the protectee, checkpoints are established, and access to the secured area is limited."


Got this straight off the Secret Service Web Site....hope they can't finger print the computer ....


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I'd love to consult my local Secret Service branch office for general info, but I would be afraid that, with some of the language/tone issues here combined with the martial arts image, that I might be asked to name names....
> 
> I am KIDDING...sort of....NO, really - they wouldn't do that....would they?....Nah!....Well, Mabye.....
> 
> See now they have me paranoid



"They're coming to take me away, HA HA. They're coming to take me away..."


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Obviously, with either political or protective motivations, it is creating a negative image that I would agree is leaving a bad taste in civil liberties minded folks.  While I won't agree that it is intentional or primarily designed for the squashing of free speech, I would say that it demonstrates a poor 'finger on the pulse' of the citizenry from the Administration/Security/POTUS'.  The cowboy way isn't making friends in lowly places



It seems as if you are rather fond of the "false analogy" fallacy.  There is a large difference between a political dissenter and an assassin.  All of the Pre-incident indicators of an assassination point to someone who has pre-planned their strategy and tactics.  That points to someone who is ready and willing to act as in imposter if neccessary.  Look at the statistics.  Or at least look at the anecdotal evidence out there.  Very few assassinations have been accomplished by those who go out and profess loudly their dissent and then do their deed.  Read "The Gift of Fear" by Gavin DeBecker.  The chapter on assassination will be particularly enlightening - that is if the ice hasn't formed...

It just doesn't make any sense and it is not good security policy because it sets up a precident that shows an assassin HOW to get close to the president.  All of the security arguments have holes you could drive trucks through!  No other presidents have done this.  NOT EVEN REAGAN WHO WAS THE VICTIM OF AN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT!!!!  This is not a security procedure.  It is about protecting a president from dissenting opinions when he is infront of the media in order to show a false image of solidarity.  It's unreality TV.  

Perhaps the mindless drone argument could be a factor in the dissenting opinion, but I do have faith.  According to Mezirow, even you could have a transformation experience from this discussion...

WAKE UP ALL YE MINDLESS DRONES OF AMERICA!  PEOPLE DIED FOR THE RIGHTS THAT THIS PRESIDENT BLANDLY TRAMPLES!

upnorthkyosa

PS - Integrity is something you do when no one is watching.  How about being strong enough to stand up to those who disagree with you...does that count?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 1, 2004)

Again and again, you might want to go back to the Republican convention in LA of 2000--this has nothing to do with security. Nothing at all. It is a matter of keeping certain images off the evening news--which last time I checked, amounts to censorship.

I'd also be fascinated to learn exactly how it is that anyone knows exactly what it is the Hizzoner knows. He certainly speaks like a profoundly ignorant man (not as ignernt as, say Dan Quayle, but ignorant, and anyway god knows that Al Gore proved the limits of being well-informed) and I really do wonder just how we are to know that he has the slightest awareness of other viewpoints. 

The point is, guys, that dissent got erased. I continue to be amazed by the intellectual contortions folks are willing to go through to justify muzzling an old lady in a wheelchair.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 1, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> In this single incident, with only limited pictures of the total scene, and a very sketchy article on the story . . . , I am saying that I am looking at these measures and descriptions as security procedures based on the info at hand.


Just a couple of thoughts, before I even read the next 10 or 12 posts in this thread.

I do know the geography from where the article takes place. I have wanted to go and take a picture of the school building where the President was speaking ... and measure the distance to where the protestors were cordoned off. 

And, this is New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, we practice very personal politics. If one is so inclined, they can meet each and every presidential candidate before the primary. I would be willing to bet that Betty met with G.W. when he was a candidate. 

Again, she served 12 terms in the NH house. The president should have been out on the street thanking her for her years dedicated public service.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 2, 2004)

Assassins carrying guns, disguised as 'pro-Bush' or who ever are only one category of threat that the SS prepares for.

Just because it wasn't done before doesn't mean dooky.  Tradition is not an effective argument in a forum titled "Martial Talk" when innovations/adaptiveness is discussed to meet the needs of the moment....

After the explosions at abortion clinics and the Atlanta olympics/Unibomber/anthrax scares.... distance is ONLY ONE technique, applicable for a small percentage of threat types to the priniciple.  But, SS have to prepare for all contingencies with as simple and manageable plan as possible....sounds like fight principles again to me.

Look at the Forensic Journal pieces attached to the Secret Service Web Site concerning Threat Assessment and the data compiled about past threats - lethal and non lethal contacts - on officials.  They explore the weakness of 'assumptions' about threats and the holes in profiling procedures as stand alone tools for 'predictors.'  Just an example, the age range of threat persons ranged from 16 to 73.  There were other profile types of data that I read and saw as evidence that - in the moment and in planning - the threats could come from places totally unexpected if you are only assuming certain types of attacks/motives.

I have worked crowd control for events, and the crowd IS the problem because - citing the OJ Simpson Riots - even reasonable people, when they are banded together, can be capable of unbelievable things when the passions of the moment can almost 'permit' unacceptable behavior.  My experience is with crowds at a 'fun' event and they acted unruly, rude, pushy and did things that they would never think of individually.It is a bazaar phenomenon to watch.  

What if the subject of a group of 'anti-' demonstrators is within hate and discontent range, and like "the shot heard round the world" one persons action sets off a whole chain of events because it gives 'permission' for the rest of the crowd to start creating havoc?  It has happened that way and it will again.

Simple reasoning also rules here too:

If the protection team is continuing to use a procedure that is creating this much public disapproval and criticism, and all the spin doctors/public relation types are seeing the same disapproval remarks (the POTUS/administration do really read the papers and get briefings regulary) and are STAYING with the practice in spite of that - I would say that their primary motivation is protection and not political because the protection could be costing some political approval.

Because the 'keeping the images away' logic has tons of holes as well.  If it was that big a problem, why aren't the camera teams/reporters chasing down these 'quarrentined' dissenters and getting there spin and comments?  Why isn't the media hooking into this gripping and attention grabbing problem to blast the story all over the news and raise the awareness of the viewer....as well as get tons of advertising clout with the increase in Nielson points?

I know the public relations/press secretaries of the Bush administration/republicans are corralling them as well - away from the dissenters.  So, even the investigative reporters, press releases from these demonstration groups to the networks and other forms of photo ops/platform speech making situations are being squashed as well...  

With all the open criticism and concerns of the POTUS' policies in Iraq, the media is being strong armed into silence about this incidious dissenter/information control tatic...

Have fun.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 2, 2004)

Nope.

I too have worked crowd control and I HAVE actually worked to control REALLY unruly crowds.  Part of the security work I did was for heavy metal concerts.  Think mosh pit and drugs.  Anyways, the techniques that we performed controlled that crowd just fine and we didn't have all of the fancy equipment that the SS has available to them.  A crowd of protesters getting out of hand can be dispersed and the president can be huddled off without much risk if you have the right training and I am SURE that the SS has that training.  The assertion that a spontaneous riot catching the POTUS and tearing him apart is not only bogus, but it discounts the intensive training that SS have had to deal with that sort of thing.

Granted, new threats are always developing.  Assassins will look for the weakest areas to strike.  Assassins are also creatures of habit.  There are many pre-incident indicators that are VERY reliable in this respect.  This means that it is entirely possible for an assassin to use the current "security" situation for their advantage.  In my opinion, this kind of treatment, if it is "security" related creates a blindspot in the web meant to catch threats.  There is nothing simple and manageable about treating one group of people different then another.  Again, it just points the way for an assassin to be successful.

Profiling, alone, is not a good predictor, true, but I never made that point.  The point I made is that the "profiling" in this case has nothing to do with security and everything to do with squelching dissent.  

We can discuss security procedure until the cows come home and in the end the pro-security/moving dissenters argument becomes completely asanine, because the threat from protest groups has proven to be nil in the past.  A protest group, seeing the presence of suited SS and visibly armed guards surrounding the president is going to have a really hard time assuming a mob mentality.  Obviously, you've never been someone in this situation facing down the threat of bullets if things get out of hand.  

As far as your fight/martial arts analogy goes, that too, is bogus.  You don't block the left hand and let the right one close when you fight.  Do you think you (or the president) are proof against right hands?  Do you think there is anyone on the right who is unhappy with what the president is doing?  If this was a security issue EVERYONE would be treated equally regardless of their political leanings.

Using your simple reasoning rules, it also follows that...

1.  The reason the practice of squelching dissent is continued dispite the negative press from the left is because it has proven effective for squelching dissent.  The administration doesn't care what the left thinks.  As long as the right is convinced that it is for security purposes, the left is nothing but a "focus group".

2.  Yeah, like that article posted was super secret covert dissent propaganda distributed by an underground network of illuminated radicals who are constantly on the run from the man.  The media IS hooking into this issue and they are going after these people who are having their first amendment rights trampled.  How in the heck are we able to talk about this issue if they have not been doing that?  Countless, countless, countless numbers of peices have been done on this issue as long as the media remains "left" though, the right won't give a darn.  It's security dang it, and screw all the evidence otherwise.

3.  Dude, you need to get real.  This is not conspiracy theory that you can just blithely denounce as more liberal trash.  The destruction of our civil liberties is REALLY happening and you can only stand their so long before the ARK pulls away.

Have Fun Swimming

upnorthkyosa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 2, 2004)

I continue to be amazed. This was an old lady in a wheelchair.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 2, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Because the 'keeping the images away' logic has tons of holes as well. If it was that big a problem, why aren't the camera teams/reporters chasing down these 'quarrentined' dissenters and getting there spin and comments? Why isn't the media hooking into this gripping and attention grabbing problem to blast the story all over the news and raise the awareness of the viewer....as well as get tons of advertising clout with the increase in Nielson points?


Well, Betty sure had some things to say in the Nashua Telegraph. However, one reason the National Media may not be covering this story to the extent you suggest, is because the International Conglomerates that own the media might not be interested in a little old lady in a wheel chair. They might be interested in encouraging the Bush Administration policies that so handsomely reward the very wealthy, and the corporations.

We do not have a 'Guardian' type of news station here in the US; an independent journalistic resource the actually employs skepticism as a vital ingredient in the news gathering process. We have few independent sources of news. We have NewCorp, Disney, & GE dispensing news; yes dispensing, that is taking what the government says and repeating it without fact checking or second sourcing. In those companies, the news is driven by the bottom line, not newsworthyness. How much media time was devoted to Martha Stuarts trial (an honest news event, concerning a $60,000.00 stock loss) compared to the Medicare Perscription Drug accounting error ($150,000,000,000.00 worth of bad math known and hidden by the Bush Administration) prior to the congressional vote.


 ... but I'm just one of those whinin' liberals.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2004)

Strange that how when a democrat is in power, the media is a biased liberal institution and when a republican is in power, its "big business" protecting its own.

My take on this stuff...

The SS has the "last word" on security matters so Im doubtful of the the premise that this is all the Presidents doing. I worked a VP security detail when his motorcade passed through my Town. The SS had set up the same thing for him. Ive worked personal security for the Military and Civilian LE. The Principals let the security teams deal with security and Ive never had one demand something like this. If anything they complain that its giving them a bad image but they are told that its a necessary measure.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I continue to be amazed. This was an old lady in a wheelchair.


 Robert, that wheelchair might have been rigged to explode, or been armed with those WMD they can't seem to find in Iraq.

Anyway, have you ever seen those old ladies do Bingo?  They make MMA folks quake in fear. 

:rofl:



Hey, is it just me, or does all this "SS" stuff remind anyone of another group with similar initials?  Both groups wore dress shirts (white/brown), black ties, were involved in security of political figures, are a bit overzelous in their duties....difference seems to be a bit of color, an armband and a little mustache.  Oh, and one roughs up old ladies, the other babies. :/ Regardless, there are similarities in the crackdown of public displays of disent.  Oh wait though...this is post-9/11 I keep forgetting.  We're scared of those terrorist folks and all the evil they can do.  What color alert are we on today? Muave? I just can't keep up.

</sarcasm>


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 2, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Strange that how when a democrat is in power, the media is a biased liberal institution and when a republican is in power, its "big business" protecting its own.
> 
> My take on this stuff...
> 
> The SS has the "last word" on security matters so Im doubtful of the the premise that this is all the Presidents doing. I worked a VP security detail when his motorcade passed through my Town. The SS had set up the same thing for him. Ive worked personal security for the Military and Civilian LE. The Principals let the security teams deal with security and Ive never had one demand something like this. If anything they complain that its giving them a bad image but they are told that its a necessary measure.



On the Media point, this is another one of those "wake up and smell the coffee issues."  20 years ago we had a multitude of large media sources owned by a very diverse group of people - and this is without the internet!  Now we have three.  If you can't see the consolidation and dissemination of information in this phenomenon, the mindless drone label starts to fit a little better 

On the other point, I would like to see some information concerning protest groups and their physical threat to the president.  I would like to see this information cross-referenced to that of the typical assassin in order to assess for myself just how the situation has changed to require this new procedure.  If other presidents did not do this, sure their must be some data to show how protesters have suddenly become "dangerous".  

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 2, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Strange that how when a democrat is in power, the media is a biased liberal institution and when a republican is in power, its "big business" protecting its own.


I think this statement could be analyzed for validity. I am not so certain there is now, or ever was a 'Liberal Bias' in the media. Certainly, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly repeat this statement often enough, but that does not necessarily make it true. 

Do you think the 'Media' is biased toward 'Liberal' positions? Why?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 2, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Oh wait though...this is post-9/11 I keep forgetting.  We're scared of those terrorist folks and all the evil they can do.  What color alert are we on today? Muave? I just can't keep up.



Can anyone say Reichstag fire?  This could be a whole new thread.  I saw a good website on this a while back.  I wonder if I can still find it...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think this statement could be analyzed for validity. I am not so certain there is now, or ever was a 'Liberal Bias' in the media. Certainly, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly repeat this statement often enough, but that does not necessarily make it true.
> 
> Do you think the 'Media' is biased toward 'Liberal' positions? Why?


I wasnt making a statement about the media as much as I was making an observation about an opinion shift regarding it. When Clinton was in office "liberal media" was being tossed everywhere. Now that its Bush its a "big busniess" issue. Gripes always seem to be a backlash against the party in power.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 2, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> On the other point, I would like to see some information concerning protest groups and their physical threat to the president. I would like to see this information cross-referenced to that of the typical assassin in order to assess for myself just how the situation has changed to require this new procedure. If other presidents did not do this, sure their must be some data to show how protesters have suddenly become "dangerous".
> 
> upnorthkyosa


Dont know....call your secret service office and ask. My point is that I think this is more a SS issue than a presidential one.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 2, 2004)

If this is going to spiral downward into 'cross referencing data', I would love to see where you have the transcripts/memos of the POTUS telling the SS (only an abreviation for speed, let's not go too far here) that he wants those dissenter quarrentined.  This isn't the first time or the last that there have been POTUS who come under criticism.  This isn't the first or last time that the SS/security practices have been misinterpreted/misunderstood by those without any real knowledge on the subject.  Much like those who don't know much about martial arts, scientific study, educational practices, military operations or other topics create opinions without all the information or an equal amount of information/experience from both sides of the issue.

This is all speculation, opinion....sand pounding yet again.  What are you going to do about it if you are so upset?  Yell at me because I disagree?  I didn't call anyone here Liberal nor did I bring up conspiracy....And since no one is talking about reform actions that they are taking when I asked earlier = except for Bob H. who talked about keeping folks informed = I am taking that lack of data into consideration when I form my opinions about folks on these forums.  I think how people behave in a 'consequence free/uninhibiting' environment can be more telling than anywhere else, one's true character can shine because you don't hold back as much as you would at work, home, school....

As an MP, Marine, Private Security, Teacher.... I have been told that I was 'infringing' or doing something that 'wasn't right' and had line and letter of policy quoted to me by those subject to my job appointed authority on a regular basis.  The security details that are protecting the POTUS are experiencing the same thing in different ways.  

Would you feel better if I said "Yes, I see your point"  wait, I did say that, I just added that, based on my training, experience and view that I don't agree with it.  Okay, for a group of folks talking about individual freedom and right to dissent, I am feeling a lot of peer pressure to leave, shut up or convert.


Have fun with more of your flock.... this is interestingly revealing about the 'openness' of liberalism.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 2, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Would you feel better if I said "Yes, I see your point"  wait, I did say that, I just added that, based on my training, experience and view that I don't agree with it.  Okay, for a group of folks talking about individual freedom and right to dissent, I am feeling a lot of peer pressure to leave, shut up or convert.
> 
> Have fun with more of your flock.... this is interestingly revealing about the 'openness' of liberalism.



What I find interesting is that despite points of view from lots of different people from across the country with wildly different backgrounds you stick to your belief that everything is good and that they MUST have a reason for doing what they are doing.  And then, their is the fact that you have claimed not to label those points of view liberal and then contradicted that statement with the last word quoted.  Wouldn't you think that all of the people who have chimed in on the side opposite yours would have some experience that is at least equal to yours?  The argument bears consideration even by the most skeptical and the most idealogous.  Just as your argument bears consideration.  There is a truth out there.  How does one find it if one cannot obtain a document that directly orders the quashing of dissent?  How do we go beyond the realm of belief and conjecture?

I don't know if I like the world you are imposing on this forum.  I don't think you sense the scope of this technology.  Certainly there must be some benifit in having a heated discussion in a "consequence free" environment?  Also, I don't know how your real life goes, but political discussions in my family end in wrestling matches.  After which we laugh and high five.

Becareful.  Don't assume to much about someones character...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 2, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> This is all speculation, opinion....sand pounding yet again.  What are you going to do about it if you are so upset?



I am unfamiliar with the term sand pounding...sounds like something you do in kung fu.

As far as what to do...how about get arrested - refuse to obey a decree you don't belive in.  How about putting on a pro-bush shirt, get into the front row at a pro-bush rally, then take it off revealing a different shirt underneath?   How about voting for someone else?  How about proposing a city ordinance which bans "free speech zones"?  How about writing letters to the local paper?  How about writing an opinion peice for the local paper?  How about discuss this issue with your peers?  How about discussing it with strangers on the internet?  How about trying to convince others that your position is correct?  How about trying to understand both sides of the issue?

Rest assured that the rest of my congregation is doing much more then just whining on the internet.  There was a rally up here when Paul Wellstone was running.  Dick Cheney himself came to hold a counter rally - complete with free speech zones.  Guess where I was...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 2, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Wouldn't you think that all of the people who have chimed in on the side opposite yours would have some experience that is at least equal to yours? The argument bears consideration even by the most skeptical and the most idealogous. Just as your argument bears consideration.


You know, I don't think I agree. As rmcrobertson has pointed out, it was an old lady, well known in the community, wheel-chair bound. 

Experience in security be damned. How about we employ a little common sense.

Paul is arguing that security of the President is the utmost importance, it should out weigh all other factors. Well, I don't know if that is true. The founders built into the constitution a line of succession. It has been used many times through the life of our nation. 

Regardless of the safety concerns for George W. Bush, the President, the Presidency would go on ... Dick Cheney, Dennis Hasterat, Ted Stevens, Colin Powell, etc etc.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 2, 2004)

OK, this is priceless. It has been years since I have been up late enough to see Letterman.  But you gotta watch the clip. This article was taken from 'The Nation' web site, authored by Matt Bivens, I believe.




> If you missed the footage of the 12-year-old Florida boy who sleepily shared a stage with George W. Bush, you can view it here (or read about it, and see some still photos from it, here).
> 
> It's very funny, which was why it made the _"Late Show with David Letterman"_: While the President drones on from the podium, the young man standing a few feet behind him in khaki shorts, a black polo shirt and an orange baseball cap goes through some jaw-unhinging yawns (without covering his mouth because his hands are in his back pockets), lolls his head around to loosen up a stiff neck, claps and yawns, claps and checks his watch and yawns; and then, as things grow progressively more desperate for him, engages in must-stay-awake stretch exercises; takes a knee for a time; and ultimately seems to fall asleep while standing, only partially waking up when the applause starts again -- at which point he smiles sleepily and claps with everyone else.
> 
> ...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 2, 2004)

Top Ten Reasons For Wrestling That Little Old Lady To The Ground:

10. She was really Al Gore, and might've been hiding a Hanging Chad.
9. Geritol is the Basque word for, "plastique."
8. Letterman's heart surgery was a cover-up for the implantation of a Liberal Control Device (LCD). They're everywhere.
7. George saw, "Day of the Jackal," and you can make all SORTS a' **** from aluminum tubing.
6. National Security demands overrode Discount Tuesdays at Ross'.
5. There was an unsubstantiated rumor that she'd been in the Texas ANG.
4. Two words---A-Rod.
3. Kenpo doesn't include ground-fighting.
2. She wasn't wrestled down. She was ducking Condoleeza's front teeth.

And the Number One reason For Wrestling That Little Old lady To the Ground:

1. We can WIN the war in Vietnam!!!


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 3, 2004)

"Paul is arguing that security of the President is the utmost importance, it should out weigh all other factors."

This has not been my point, nor my opinion through this discussion.  My point has been that I am looking at the practice of 'free speech zones' and considering whether it is politically motivated or if it is a security measure and I am saying that I see it as a security measure.  Maybe a poorly chosen practice when you consider the public perception, but a security SOP none the less.

If others want to disagree or say that I am not exercising common sense, fine.  Don't forget that it was local cops who moved the granny, not Secret Service or the POTUS.

I don't see too much 'open' consideration of security theories - or knowledge of protective services job descriptions/sciences, delegations of responsibility above, at and below the Secret Service Protective assigned authority or crisis command and control.  I feel that your versions of 'common sense' on this are not concretely convincing either.  Oh well.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 3, 2004)

"Free speech zones?" 

"Security concerns?"

"Crisis command and control?" 

Really, nothing I could say could possibly make the point clearer.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 3, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> This has not been my point, nor my opinion through this discussion. My point has been that I am looking at the practice of 'free speech zones' and considering whether it is politically motivated or if it is a security measure and I am saying that I see it as a security measure. Maybe a poorly chosen practice when you consider the public perception, but a security SOP none the less.
> 
> If others want to disagree or say that I am not exercising common sense, fine. Don't forget that it was local cops who moved the granny, not Secret Service or the POTUS.
> 
> I don't see too much 'open' consideration of security theories - or knowledge of protective services job descriptions/sciences, delegations of responsibility above, at and below the Secret Service Protective assigned authority or crisis command and control. I feel that your versions of 'common sense' on this are not concretely convincing either. Oh well.


Ok ... I'm sorry if I mis-characterized your opinion. 

I think I have to agree with you, that for safety sake, there must be such a thing as a 'Free Speech Zone'. I think that zone should be defined by the boundaries of the United States of America. I am guaranteed the existence of that zone by the First Amendment to the constitution.

Any infringement on the right to express the Freedom of Speech should be rallied against by all citizens who wish to uphold the Constitution. I believe the President of the United States swears an oath to defend that right Against All Enemies.

Paul, I don't know what your position on the second amendement is, but many who defend that amendment do so with a furor that is unmatched in the defense of this first amendment discussion.

And while you continue to point out that it was the Nashua Police Department that arrested Betty, (and she was actually detained in the Hudson Police Departement), do you believe that the Local PD took that action without the guidence of the Secret Service?

There was an interesting letter in the local paper today basically putting forth your same argument. For the next couple of days, you can find it at the link below. The author states that she was at the "Ground Round Parking Lot". This location is approximately 1.1 miles away from where the President was speaking (at an invitation only event, by the way). At best, the Presidential motorcade *might* have chosen that direction to continue to Boston. Again, the author does not mention that the Police had asked Betty to move twice, and twice she complied. 
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040403/OPINION02/204030306/-1/opinion

From a safety point of view, let me say this. The President is perhaps the most well protected man on the planet. The Secret Service is the best organization of its kind in the world. The citizens lining the roadway pose little threat that these professionals can't handle. But could there be something else at work?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 4, 2004)

I think you are being unfair. Personally, I TRUST Bush, Ashcroft et al with my civil liberties...is there a Smiley for explosive laughter?

Actually, what I find remarkable in this discussion isn't the political difference. That's to be expected. It's the extraordinary convolutions some are going through to justify this nonsense...lotsa acronyms, pseudo-technical language, casuistry, hypotheticals, etc....and just as remarkable, all from the same people who constantly accuse the likes of me of being too abstract, too theoretical, too impractical, too fancy-pants disconnected from the real world.

Which is why I keep bringing up the embarassing plain reality: this is cops dragging an old lady in a wheelchair off to jail, so that the Prez didn't have to Feel Bad about her protest, or risk the slightest embarassment when she showed up on the evening news.

It is in fact an absolutely-shameful thing to have done, and its justification is a beautiful example of intellectual bankruptcy. 

Usually I do not have the motives that other posters keep attributing based on their fantasy. But in this case...this is wrong, and those who make excuses for it should  be ashamed of themselves.

Call me old-fashioned; I don't care WHAT the political message is, and I don't give a damn how much some wealthy and powerful man feels embarassed or might feel embarassed. 

It is wrong to have the cops haul some old lady off to jail simply for protest, and I don't give a damn who she's protesting against or what her cause is. If somebody can't see that...well, shame on them.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 4, 2004)

1. She wasn't hauled off just for protest.
2. Are old men still subject to the law or can they ignore it too?
3. What about younger women?

Is there a clause for a 49 year old non smoking male making under 35,000?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 4, 2004)

Nashua Telegraph said:
			
		

> Exercising your right to free speech can be a painful stretch
> 
> [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published: Sunday, Apr. 4, 2004[/font]
> 
> ...


[/font]


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 4, 2004)

I continue to post on this thread because I am absolutely astonished by the doublethink.

OK, MM, what exactly had she done? Show up? I notice they don't seem to be hauling, say, the average anti-abortion protester away, for all that movement's overt connections to violence. 

It is absolutely astonishing to see that writers who so often wave the flag, and go off about the Left's denial of civil liberties, find dragging protesters off to jail and curtailing free speech raises absolutely no problems for them. As for why it matters that this one was elderly...a) it exposes that whole silly set of claims about, "security," for the nonsense that it is; b) it illustrates that the whole pseudo-conservative line I keep reading about "common sense," goes right out the window when the writer dislikes the politics of the one exercising their rights; c) it illustrates just why a shameful argument is shameful; d) it suggests that NO act, no matter how loony, on the part of the Bush government will be opposed.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 4, 2004)

I always thought the reason so many have so often given so much, and many many times given all, was so that we the people could have the freedoms to speak, express, protest, disent and debate.

Seems that over the last few years, too many people are too willing to throw those rights away...all in the name of 'security'.

And, its good to know that even though guns and knives still get onto planes, terrorism is alive and well, violent crimes are contants in the news....that the US is being protected against the true! source of evil...

Old Women.

First was that upity woman who wouldn't give up her seat all those years ago....and now, yet another old woman who wouldn't give up her seat.

I'm glad to know that the largest threats to the US aren't Osama bin-boohy, the Hells Angels, the Colimbian Cartel or any of hundreds of similar dangers.

Its Aunt Frita and her knitting needles.

It could be all out war if the Bingo brigade gets between those valient defenders of freedom......and the last jelly at Tim Hortons.....

Armagedon!  I'd say call out the National Guard, but I believe they are all busy pushing the frontiers of the Imperium forward.

:rofl:

Now...back to seriousness for 1 second....
W don't read the newspaper.  Neither did Slick.  They depend on their advisors for the informational summaries they use for their decisions.

What happens when those summaries omit important information, either through accident or malice?  What happens when that information is wrong?

Oh wait....we do know.
9/11....Afgahnistan....Iraq....and those WMD that were just here a moment ago.....

Unlike a certain upserper-in-chief.... I aint laughing at that.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 5, 2004)

"...After about an hour or so of standing in the 7-Eleven/Fleet Bank area, the police demanded that we stand 20 feet away from the sidewalk. Naturally, there was not an area 20 feet away to move to. We would then be inside the 7-Eleven or the bank. Then they instructed us to move to the far side corner of Fleet Bank area. Howard Morse of Amherst and Valerie Farrell of Merrimack stood their ground and refused to move. They were arrested and taken to the police station. We all booed the arrests and continued to gather peacefully.

Shortly afterward, Betty Hall of Brookline, a former state representative, refused to move for the second time. She was sitting on her walking cane that has a seat attachment. Two policeman picked her up on her cane seat and took her to a patrol car. We all yelled in support of Betty and chanted police brutality for arresting an elderly woman. Betty is 83 years young and a consummate inspiration to us all.

The police then roped off the area where we could stand with glaring yellow plastic tape inscribed with Nashua Police Crime Scene. One policeman jokingly said they were fresh out of tape saying Protest Scene. Naturally, the only crime I could see was the blatant injustices that were occurring in our midst as I envisioned living in a totalitarian state.

During this time, the most surreal thing occurred. The normally robust and busy Amherst Street looked like a still shot out of a science fiction movie - not a car was in sight except police vehicles. Overhead in the sky was a military helicopter. A fellow protester jokingly told us not to make any sudden moves or we might be shot down by a Blackhawk helicopter. It was as if time stood still. For nearly 15 minutes,

Amherst Street was barren. Suddenly there was a flash of light approaching from the south - Bushs motorcade of 17 cars all at taxpayers expense.

Upon seeing the motorcade, the emotional venom I possessed for Bush spilled forward. I started yelling Down with Bush, Impeach Bush, Bush lied-Soldiers died, Liar- liar pants on fire, Draft dodger, Bush is a weapon of mass destruction, etc. - any despicable political phrase I could think of. Everyone around me was yelling as well.

I lost my voice and still continued to screech out words I could barely comprehend. My angst and, of course, my blood pressure was at a boiling point. Never have I disliked anyone so much in my life. Never had I felt so violated.

After the motorcade disappeared to the far side of the school and out of sight, we all hugged one another and disbanded."

So the cops, in accordance with maintaining a safety zone for a motorcade, moved a crowd, and as the motorcade either moved or was anticipated to move through an area continued to move the crowd back.  The crowd was getting lippy - using political protest as a justification to refuse compliance and frustration for having to move again when a former state rep - use to being recognized and treated with some form of preference decided to make a stand and was arrested.  Based on this, the author of the article decides to responded with 'emotional venom for Bush....' using 'despicible political phrases' with the rest of the crowd shouting around him.... mob mentallity?

From a security point of view, this sounds like a biased presentation from an emotionally upset person who already had a problem with the POTUS and found convenient excuse to lump one more log on the 'f*** Bush' fire because he didn't like having to move.  He even resorted to inflammatory statements - not because of political values, or reform or raising awareness but emotional venom - the same person who will end up voting his 'moral values.'  What would be the next step, throwing things?  Sitting in the road to prove a point?

It doesn't sound like the motorcade was coasting while Bush was giving the princess wave with his head out of the sun roof.  It does sound like it was a motorcade trying to get from point A to point B with minimal interference.  Was there any mention of 'pro-Bush' demonstrators getting preferencial treatment... no, just a single persons emotional account.

This was a MOTORCADE on the roll.  THe basic SOP of a motorcade with a principle is that you do not stop.  If the local police, in support of the security team, was ensuring this so be it.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I continue to post on this thread because I am absolutely astonished by the doublethink.
> 
> OK, MM, what exactly had she done? Show up? I notice they don't seem to be hauling, say, the average anti-abortion protester away, for all that movement's overt connections to violence.



I think she was encroaching on an unaproved zone. What's good for the goose is good for the gooses, right?

Oh, don't they have the same type of zones for the abortion protestors as well. Funny how we now have to lump in these political left-wing fanatics with the anti-abortion activists as they are obviously just as violent from the crap they spout off. (Not to mention the car tipping, broken windows, riots and other vandalous activities as seen from "protestors")

By the way, I'd argue the same point for the guy in the NRA tee-shirt shouting at the edge of the lawn about the continuation of our infringed gun rights under President Bush. Care to take on my questions now? Since you argued so fervishly to defend an old woman (read: left-wing nutjob), I guess you could explain why younger men being arrested would not get you so huffed up.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 5, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Care to take on my questions now? Since you argued so fervishly to defend an old woman (read: left-wing nutjob), I guess you could explain why younger men being arrested would not get you so huffed up.


I am just as upset about the other two people who were arrested. And had I been in town, I too probably would have been arrested. Seems to me, before Bush, Cheney & Ashcroft, this country had a First Amendment to the Constitution. As I recall, it said something about
* Freedom of Speech
* Peaceable Assembly
* Petition the Government for Redress of Grievences

All of these things were denied. Call it security if you will, but that is not what was going on.

FYI - there were no reports of Pro-Bush supporters in the paper, although I did mention a writer to the paper who claimed that security trumped free speech.

A bit later tonight, I may post the thoughts of John Dean, from his new book 'Worse than Watergate' - a comparison between Nixon & Bush II. There was a couple of paragraphs that graphically describe his point of view on this issue.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 5, 2004)

This is the text from pages  64 & 65 of John W. Dean's 'Worse than Watergate" --- so far I have found it an interesting read.  Any spelling errors are mine.


			
				Worse than Watergate said:
			
		

> As part of its image control, the Bush II administration has embraced a truly malevoent Nixonian tactic to deal with public dissent. Aside from selecting only venues that Bush and Cheney can control and manipulate the setting (potted plants here and floodlights there) and audience (please take off your neckties, gentlemen, and look casual standing behind the president), there is always the problem of getting to and from such protected venues. Bush and Cheney take extreme measures to avoid being confronted with public protest, just as Nixon did.
> 
> Nixon's intolerance became evident, for me, when traveling with him. All the antiwar demonstrators were remvoed from the route of his motorcade, and when on one occasion a few chanting protesters made their way to a location near his hotel, Nixon angrily ordered the Secret Service to remove them. Similarly, Nixon one day happened to look out a window of the White House second-floor residence and noticed a single silent demonstrator across Pennsylvania Avenue, carrying an 'End The War' sign in Lafayette Park. Nixon ordered the Secret Service to remove the man. By late 1972, I appreciated that these were not isolated incidents by rather part of a widespread use of illegal tactics and ploys by White House advance men and the Secret service to keep demonstrators out of the president's sight (and the view of news cameras). These activities were fraught with civil rights and criminal implications, but the president simply did not care. This systematic denial of First Amendment rights was about to explode into its own scandal, when the Watergate cover-up imploded, preempting and burying everything else. Still, civil lawsuits made very unpleasant headlines, and the practice was investigated, and reported on, by the U.S. Senate's Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (the Senate Watergate Committee), which expressed its dim views about White House operations blocking "undesireables" from attending Nixon rallies by using "cowboys" who "let things happen" if the Secret Service or local police failed to remove demonstrators. As I recall, the civil suits were settled by paying off the copmlaining parties with campaign funds.
> 
> ...


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 5, 2004)

```
Bush has pushed it so far that the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuite (in late September 2003) alleging that the Secret Service has on not less than seventeen occasions, from California to New Mexico, Missouri, Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania, forced groups and individuals into what are euphemistically called "free speech areas," which are always located blocks from a Bush or Cheney motorcade or speaking venue
```

Now that is interesting because I don't think I have ever read anything about these suits in the papers or seen anything about them on TV.


----------



## 8253 (Apr 6, 2004)

politics politics politics


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2004)

Oh, I get it. We now have to protect, "motorcade exclusion zones." And it's perfectly OK to haul old ladies off, if we don't like their presence or their politics. 

These arguments are shameful, and an extraordinary exposure of intellectual bankruptcy--up there with Scalia. Doesn't matter what the violation of free speech, the Bill of Rights, American tradition or for that matter common sense and traditional manners (gee, when I grew up in the Fifties, elderly people were deferred to no matter what...guess times have changed, and morals and courtesy have declined among these young folks), ya don't like their politics, screw 'em.

Kids, free speech is defended to guarantee everybody's rights to say what is unpopular. Americans USED to understand that; what's up with the trashing of traditional values?

I continue to be astonished by the doublethink, the proliferation of pseudo-expert militaristic terminology, and the deployment of "knowledgeable," acronyms and abbreviations. 


To quote Robert Heinlein, "profanity was too weak."

It's bushwa.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 7, 2004)

Bush is only doing what Nixon did.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 7, 2004)

Boy, I sho wish somewun would edum'cate us dum folk. We's just spoutin' the same point o' view three timez and _still_ otha folk are arguin' a point nobuddy made.

Maybe if we were communist, we could all pool into one single intellectual bank account.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 7, 2004)

nani?


Nixon used the police and secret service to shield himself from public protests against him, going so far on at least 1 occasion to have a lone protester across the street removed by the SS.

Bush's use (or the use on his behalf by others in his administration) of local police forces and the SS echo those used by President Nixon.

Nixons actions were found to be illegal.

While the safety of the President and his associates is of importance, it can not out weigh the civil liberties and rights of the people as specified in law and the Constitution.  You can not destroy one to save the other, without impacting on both.

I have every right to go to George Bush and tell him I believe he is wrong. One of our biggest points is "By the People, For the People."  If our leaders are out of touch with the people, we have become a society ruled by an elected aristocracy and given up on one of the cornerstones of our Republic.

Simply put, the problem is less people are voting than before.  Our leaders are led by the noses by PAC and SIG and don't do what is 'right'.  Protestors are being cracked down on repeatedly.  

-The majority of the violence in Seattle at the trade conf. was caused by local police.
-Anti war protestors in NYC and other places were bullied, harrassed and attacked by local police.
-Anti Bush protestors are restricted to "free speech" zones, well out of sight and hearing of Bush. 
-The mainstreme media in order to preserve their access to GW doesn't report on these abuses.
-etc.

Last I read, with the exception of a few high security areas, the entire US was a Free Speech zone...not just a few blocks down the street and around the corner. Is that still true, or has 1984 arrived, just 20 years late?


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 7, 2004)

Sumimasen...

I wasn't refering to your post Kaith. At least I can repsect both points of view before resorting to attacks on people's intellect.*cough* the post above yours.

Also, in the same way things are heading to Orwell's 1984, it seems people are going in the reverse back to the 60's with this whole peace mentality.

While I agree we can go straight to the Prez and voice our concerns, security today is a little different. I don't think anyone in going to get "in his face" about anything, nor any future president.

Of course, where do you draw the line? A 3 foot perimiter around him, the edge of the street, the edge of the lawn...  I've asked this before from the "intellectually rich" and haven't gotten an answer. Rightly so, in the face of the security concerns we have today.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2004)

"If we were communists....this whole peace mentality...I agree we can go straight to the President."

If you really want your ideas, your arguments, your facts, to be respected, you'll really need a little better stuff than that. And let's not even get into the moral status of deriding, "that peace stuff," though peace is admittedly a concept utterly foreign to, say, the Gospels. 

I say again...dragging an old lady in a wheelchair off, because she tried to--I believe, "petition for a redress of grievances," is the phrase--is shameful, as common sense should tell ya. Defending such an action is ludicrous--as the proliferation of acronyms, abbreviations, and pseudo-military terminology should show. 

The notion that this old woman might somehow be a threat...whoof. Lay off the reviews of, "In the Line of Fire," and "Day of the Jackal." The history tells you, if you'll bother to look, that assassins are not clever. (Neither are terrorists, really.) They're simply nuts, and determined. (OK...Leon Czolgosz wrapped his hand in a big bandage...oooh, VERY sly.) These exploding wheelchairs and death-lasers-made-from-tubing-and-a-wedding-ring are TV fantasy.

Again, I find the political correctness remarkable. Apparently, all sorts of absurd violations of civil liberties and contorted explanations of those violations are perfectly permissible, provided you don't like the politics of the people you see hauled off to jail. I'd known that since Nixon, but I hadn't fully understood how willingly core principles (you know...treat the elderly with patience and respect, no matter how annoying they get) would be dumped, in order to keep ONE OLD LADY IN A WHEELCHAIR from holding up a protest sign.

I guess the Republicans just can't take it.

And oh, incidentally, did anybody notice all the trial balloons about pumping up troop strength in Iraq? Looks like if we're going back to 1964, it sure ain't because of all that peace stuff.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 7, 2004)

"If we were communists....this whole peace mentality...I agree we can go straight to the President."

If you really want your ideas, your arguments, your facts, to be respected, you'll really need a little better stuff than that. And let's not even get into the moral status of deriding, "that peace stuff," though peace is admittedly a concept utterly foreign to, say, the Gospels. "


Choose to ignore and quote out of context all you want. Things like that will not get your comments respected  - at least not by anyone I should care about. As for being a peacenik, if that's your perrogative while we have planes used as missiles (as if that didn't take any planning), well go ahead and get out your popcorn, because there's more stuff like that coming.

Nobody's deriding peace, just the anti-war climate. An you're right we don't need a whole thread dedicated to how you are wrong on all of the Gospels praising war.




"I say again...dragging an old lady in a wheelchair off, because she tried to--I believe, "petition for a redress of grievances," is the phrase--is shameful, as common sense should tell ya. Defending such an action is ludicrous--as the proliferation of acronyms, abbreviations, and pseudo-military terminology should show. "


Again, you can cling to that reason as the ONLY thing they had in mind (like you can read minds right) and refuse to believe that people should follow the law. As for the military terminology - I dunno where that all came about..I'll let someone else take that one on.





"The notion that this old woman might somehow be a threat...whoof. Lay off the reviews of, "In the Line of Fire," and "Day of the Jackal." The history tells you, if you'll bother to look, that assassins are not clever. (Neither are terrorists, really.) They're simply nuts, and determined. (OK...Leon Czolgosz wrapped his hand in a big bandage...oooh, VERY sly.) These exploding wheelchairs and death-lasers-made-from-tubing-and-a-wedding-ring are TV fantasy."


Really???? Perhaps some modern day terrorists and assassins. Somewhere I seem to recall seeing a Ninjutsu board on this website tho...They are probably not studying anything clever though. But if your perspective on terrorists and assassins is shared by our current administration (and it isn't) we ARE in a world of doo-doo.




"Again, I find the political correctness remarkable. Apparently, all sorts of absurd violations of civil liberties and contorted explanations of those violations are perfectly permissible, provided you don't like the politics of the people you see hauled off to jail. I'd known that since Nixon, but I hadn't fully understood how willingly core principles (you know...treat the elderly with patience and respect, no matter how annoying they get) would be dumped, in order to keep ONE OLD LADY IN A WHEELCHAIR from holding up a protest sign.

I guess the Republicans just can't take it."





Well, I seem to recall stating I would be for the same treatment of the NRA guy shouting as well. If you aren't in the right spot, you gotta move. So if you think you got an ounce of evidence I am one sided on this politically, do some more digging.



"And oh, incidentally, did anybody notice all the trial balloons about pumping up troop strength in Iraq? Looks like if we're going back to 1964, it sure ain't because of all that peace stuff."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2004)

Oh my goodness, no. NOT an, "anti-war climate." Hint, dude. if you want to actually argue your ideas effectively in this case, you need to quit painting yourself into corners.

Don't position yourself as pro-war and anti-peace this way. Argue that you too are all in favor of peace, you just want the real thing rather than a pie-in-the-sky illusion. Argue that you too are in favor of social justice and civil rights, you simply have different ideas about how these are to be secured. Skip the "communism," approach--which you brought up--because it exposes the weakness of your political and intellectual position. 

And actually those Sept. 11th a.......s?  Don't argue how sophisticated they were, because that's absurd. Their supposed technological sophistication and organizational cleverness...bushwa. It's a stereotype--sorry, but probably a racial stereotype--about the Subtle Oriental Mind (go read Said's "Orientalism") that goes back before the Evil Dr. Fu Manchu. All they did was sneak a few box-cutters through lousy security at the airport, after the government screwed up in catching them at the border. Fact of the matter is, we CANNOT "seal our borders," or obtain perfect safety, and some of our fantasies about achieving this are dangerous. Especially the ones about Americans being the Enemy--check under your beds and Keep Watching the Skies!--that folks seem to be adopting unthinkingly from the likes of Michael Savage. 

Instead, argue that we really do have enemies, they're determined to hurt us, and that it is unrealistic to think otherwise. 

You're hanging onto a ridiculous position about arresting/blocking/banning protest. Follow a basic martial arts principle--bend like the willow, give into the idea that WE SHOULD NOT BE SHOVING OLD PEOPLE AROUND, and explain why her ideas are idiotic. 

Of course, your other problem is that I've seen every single one of your arguments before. Between 1964 and 1972....but if you wanna support this country's insane war in Vietnam, well, that (at the moment) is your right as an American. 

One of the worst things about so-called conservative positions (they aren't: they're actually radically corporatist) is that they have led to obscenities like that clown from Georgia who ran--successfully!--against Max Cleland (lost both legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam) on the grounds that he was unpatriotic, and hated America. It's shameful, and I hope that some of you guys are able to figure this out sooner or later.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 7, 2004)

Well actually just because I am not for the anti-war crowd, who by my definition would never go to war, does not make me a supporter of the folks who are just as far on the opposite side of the fence. My friendly advice to you, and I mean it sincerely, is to not box people up into categories. Also your closing comment on Conservatives and Coproratism really doesn't concern me. But then we go back to that whole "What is a Liberal/Conservative thing."

Also, my saying that the terrorists were clever was in no way to praise them or based on stereotype. There was more involved than box cutters. There were Visas, airline training, yes boxcutters, evaluation of our airline security systems (all-be-it they are shabby but people still blame the President instead).

As for moving the old people, yes, bad judgement on the part of the POLICE. But then they are trying to look good for you-know-who.

OK, here's the bending willow. The issue is how do we keep security while not stepping on everyone's rights. Anotehr example, the Patroit Act. There's going to be some bad with the good. The same way that when most people vote, it's the lesser of 2 evils, but I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here now.

But it just ticks me off at what people blame the President for. Maybe from now on I should just silently roll my eyes.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> But it just ticks me off at what people blame the President for. Maybe from now on I should just silently roll my eyes.



Join me at the bar (coffee that is) Mike, I have been watching with amusement for a little while now.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 7, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Join me at the bar (coffee that is) Mike, I have been watching with amusement for a little while now.



Yes, sometiems I get on here and take some whipping at the post for our side.  :boing2:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> But it just ticks me off at what people blame the President for.


I think the problem is, its easier to say "that damn Bush" or "that bastard Clinton", etc. than to seek the real cause of the issue.

People often forget that things usually must go through the proper chanels.  Those channels are of course the Senate, and the House, as well as the advisors of the currently sitting President.

The whole Iraq situation is -not- George W. Bush's fault.
It is the fault of those spineless followers in Congress who in a moment of panic, gave him the power to set things in motion that brought us to this point. 
It was the removal of certain checks and balances that caused other problems.

Considering the number of things a sitting president must deal with, he can't be expected to watch the news, read the paper, etc.  He must rely on the information of his advisors.

There is an saying "Garbage in, Garbage out".
If your data is suspect, so are your conclusions.

I don't believe that W is actively behind alot of the crap.  I do however believe there are those within his administration who are. This administration has been refered to in the alternative press as the "scandel of the week club" due to all the problems they are surrounded with. 1 man can't be that much of a dunderhead.

Some discenting stories that are quietly 'not-reported':
- The 15 nation Caribbean Community unanimously decided not to reconize the US-occupation government in Haiti.  In Responce, Bush National Security Advisor Rice threatened Jamaican government with action unless they shipped the toppled Haitian president to Africa.  This action would place Jamaica on the same  list as Thailand, Stria, Somalia and the Philippines.
- Why did the Bush administration ignore signs of impending Al-Qaida attacks despite a request for a cabinet-level meeting in Jan 2001, a July 2001 FBI report and an August 2001 -personal- briefing?  Then again, why did they suspend FBI monitoring of Al-Qaida members in the US prior to the 9/11 attacks?  AG Reno listed a terroristic threat as the #1 concern.  AG Ashcroft however didn't consider it an issue at all.  

Stifling discent can take many forms.  The mainstreme news sources don't touch this.  As a result, many of the problems caused by Bush Administration policies are known only to small groups.  Control the information, control the masses.

It's not a new policy.  It is just being done at a larger level than ever before.

Anyone besides me wonder why gas prices are so high?
Can it have anything to do with US refineries not able to keep up with demand?  The raw oil is here, we just can't process the stuff fast enough.
Could it have something to do with an administration with -heavy- ties to the oil industry? (Personally, I'd rather have a carrier named after me, not a tanker, but hey....)

Just food for thought.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2004)

Um, 'scuse me for paying attention, but who marched us into Iraq? And pardon me for reality, but who's the head of the government? And excuse my history, but how come it's only been the Republicans who seem to've been finding that dissent needs quarantining?

"...the anti-war crowd, who by my definition would never go to war, does not make me a supporter of the folks who are just as far on the opposite side of the fence. My friendly advice to you, and I mean it sincerely, is to not box people up into categories." Hm. No boxings there.

And who is it who's boxing people, "up into categories?" You know--like me, communists, LITTLE OLD WOMEN IN WHEELCHAIRS (I capitalize in hope that at some point, the ludicrousness will become apparent), and terrorists, all of whom you have repeatedly and insistently connected?

Must be some a' those binary oppositions I keep mentioning have crept into yer discourse without your being aware....if I were going to box people up, in an equivalent fashion, I'd start yakkin' about your intellectual common ground with all sorts of rightist nut groups and murdering creeps like Timothy McVeigh...

And as for the whole, "being whipped," thing....hm.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Um, 'scuse me for paying attention, but ...And pardon me for reality, but ....And excuse my history,
> Must be some a' those binary oppositions I keep mentioning have crept into yer discourse without your being aware....if I were going to box people up, in an equivalent fashion, I'd start yakkin' about your intellectual common ground with all sorts of rightist nut groups and murdering creeps like Timothy McVeigh...
> "being whipped," thing....hm.




Wow, with this kind of intellectual discourse no wonder I am bowing to the reasonable mindedness of the discussion.  Honestly, plug in whatever data you want, but this stuff reads like an old Steve Martin Saturday Night Live act, or one of those "Talk to the hand..." bits.

I will now roll my eyes again and stroll back to the bar for a refill of my Mocha Latte


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 7, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I will now roll my eyes again and stroll back to the bar for a refill of my Mocha Latte...



...while your civil liberties are stripped away one by one by the people you defend.  911 is the perfect catalyst for Orwellian Doublethink.  There have been worse times in this country and yet in those times people were less apt to make excuses for those who attempted to infringe on their freedom.  If this REALLY is a WAR then we need to get into a wartime mentality and stop being afraid of the sacrifices involved.  We also need to draw a line in the sand to delineate that which we will NOT cross.  The loss of of our civil liberties makes everyone less American.  What the heck is this "war on terror" really about anyways?

upnorthkyosa

PS - the last statement has many layers of meaning.  Peel away that which best fits.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> . . . . security today is a little different. . . .
> . . . .  in the face of the security concerns we have today.


I don't know if I qualify as one of the 'intellectually rich', but the way I see it, there is no terrorist threat. 

In the year 2000, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the 2002, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the year 2003, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. 

Now, in the year 2001, well ... let's see, you had a greater chance of dying of pneumonia, homicide, and automobile accident or suicide than you had of dying of a terrorist attack on US Soil.

So, what exactly do you mean by 'security today is a little different'? Why is 'security today ... a little different'?

Could it be the war in Iraq ... well, not really ... we've pretty much made sure that any terrorists who might thing about coming to the US have an easier target to reach (thereby lowering the possiblity of a threat here in this country). 

Mike, you may not like this answer. But it is an answer to the questions posed about security, if I understand them... ibid. Managing Security requires control of the environment.

I am argueing (and others are too, I believe), that it is *not* for security reasons that the Secret Service has restricted access of protestors to venues where the President or Vice President is going to speak. We are instead argueing that the 'free speech zones' are being presented as a 'security issue' but what is really behind them is 'secrecy' and 'suppression of dissent'.

Let's not forget, that the American Voter is the Presidents Boss. ... wouldn't it be wonderful if, when our boss was in poor temper, we could just lock them in a far away conference room and pretend they didn't exist.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> LITTLE OLD WOMEN IN WHEELCHAIRS (I capitalize in hope that at some point, the ludicrousness will become apparent)


 
 ...... and sysiphus chuckled ......


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 7, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't know if I qualify as one of the 'intellectually rich', but the way I see it, there is no terrorist threat.
> 
> In the year 2000, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the 2002, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the year 2003, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
> 
> ...



That's right. In 2001 we were attacked. It was the beginning of a war. Jihad! Jihad! Jihad! Remember??? I think therefor a declaration of war was made against us. Seems pretty clear to me, we live in a DIFFERENT day and age.

Oh, and if a group declares war on us and another country harbors them, it would be my policy to remove that country's leadership as well. Oh, If another country sells them supplies, it would be my policy to remove that country's leadership as well.

Yup, things are different. And I hope we have another 4 years of the current administration in order to begin removing other rogue nations who side with the "Jihadists." How can you justify "a little with us" or "a little with them." Makes perfect sense - you're either with us or against us. The politicizing of this war has made it clear now just who is who.

And why would the President have the Secret Service devise a plan to silence 25 people near Nashua NH? When there are:

~250 million people watching the news
~100 million people on the net
millions more listening to radio
millions reading the NY Times ( and all the other lib bias papers I wouldn't wipe my behind with)

plennnnty of avenues to get their voices out. And the President is concerned with the 25 people on the lawn in NH? Where the TV crews could have just as easily broadcast what was on their signs? Nah, I'm just not buying it.

Oh -and absolutely NOBODY has answered my questions on how close is close enough, and why the zones need to be made closer to the President.

3 feet? - a good yells distance (or spitting distance depending on the person)
surrounding the motorcade car? Perhaps banging on the windows would change his policies
across the street? - if your sign's big enough, the President might discifer the hatefull remarks. At least he could appreciate the colors.

I think there is a little common sense in keeping some of these people a safe distance. I've seen them. They scare me too.

It's obvious you don't like my answers either. But we shouldn't lose sleep over it at night. I know I don't.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> and absolutely NOBODY has answered my questions on how close is close enough, and why the zones need to be made closer to the President.


How about we teach the President a few 'Gift' techniques, and that will be the correct distance to measure protesters from. Protesters should be allowed close enough to the President so that he *can run *'Gift in Return', or 'Gift of Destruction', or 'Gift of Destiny'.

Certainly, I would not suggest that the Secret Service are restricted from the area, they could be standing *next to *the President (assuming they are trained to get out of the way when the President tries to run one of the techniques on Betty - aka 'The Little Old Lady in the Wheelchair').

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 9, 2004)

Nixon had trumpeters. Bush has dissent swept aside. Carter got out of the limo with Roslyn and walked to the inauguration. What can we learn from this?

Aren't some of you the guys who keep nattering about the decline and fall of great nations?

At least we could have a slave (they're bringing that back...at least for the gestarbeiten) whispering, "Remember, Caesar, thou art human," in Hizzoner's ear...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> At least we could have a slave (they're bringing that back...at least for the gestarbeiten) whispering, "Remember, Caesar, thou art human," in Hizzoner's ear...


I like Charlie Pierces' term of endearment for Hizzoner ..... "C-Plus Augustus".


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> How about we teach the President a few 'Gift' techniques, and that will be the correct distance to measure protesters from. Protesters should be allowed close enough to the President so that he *can run *'Gift in Return', or 'Gift of Destruction', or 'Gift of Destiny'.
> 
> Certainly, I would not suggest that the Secret Service are restricted from the area, they could be standing *next to *the President (assuming they are trained to get out of the way when the President tries to run one of the techniques on Betty - aka 'The Little Old Lady in the Wheelchair').
> 
> Mike



Yea that makes sense. I'll reply with - "Probably becuase the attack would be a knife from behind."


----------



## michaeledward (May 5, 2004)

This is from 'The Nation' web site. 





			
				The Nation . com - David Corn said:
			
		

> Banned in Kalamazoo
> 05/05/2004 @ 4:52pm
> E-mail this Post
> Shouldn't college students seeking knowledge--especially knowledge that might challenge their own biases--be encouraged? Not so, it seems, according to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign and the College Republicans of Kalamazoo College. When seven sophomores at the school showed up at Wings Stadium in downtown Kalamazoo to see George W. Bush at a campaign rally on May 3 and presented the tickets they had obtained for the event, security officers would not allow them in. The problem, according to these students, was that College Republicans volunteering at the event fingered them as liberals who did not support Bush. And such citizens were not welcome at the rally.
> ...



​


----------



## someguy (May 5, 2004)

I didn't really read it all because of the tiny tiny print but what I did read was intresting.  From what I have experienced with the college republicans I dislike them.  The college democrats around my campus are abbout as well liked for me as well though so I dunno.  Maybe I just dislike too many pepole.


----------



## michaeledward (Aug 27, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Thanks, though. Nothing is funnier than reading the intellectual/political contortions of people who are trying to justify having the cops haul off an 84-year-old woman in a wheelchair because she's holding a protest sign. Especially when they've previously been arguing that Liberals Are Going To Take Over the Country and Crush Our Liberties.


For those who recall ... 



> Judge acquits Betty Hall of disorderly conduct
> 
> 
> *By ANDREW WOLFE, Telegraph Staff*
> ...


[/font]


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> (gee, when I grew up in the Fifties, elderly people were deferred to no matter what...guess times have changed, and morals and courtesy have declined among these young folks)


You mean the young folks in the Bush administration? Or the young folks in charge of Secret Service and local police who are the ones who had that lady arrested? Wow, calling them young must put you at what, 80? Oh yeah, while I'm at it, when you say the high-moral fifties, do you mean the fifties as in the time when schools were segregated and people got beat up or hosed by fire-engines--and then arrested--for peaceful protest? Well, that was all in the sixties, a decade later, but I think it's safe to say that the social setting was pretty similar regarding political dissent.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 17, 2004)

Apparently, the Quarantine has been expanded to include, not just dissentors, but also the press whose obligation it is to keep the electorate informed. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9703-2004Sep9.html


> *Secret Service Not Coddling Hecklers*
> 
> 
> By Dana Milbank
> ...


Sorry I didn't post the entire article RandomPhantom ... I forgot that the WashingtonPost was a subscription  web site ... I got cookies, don't you know.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 17, 2004)

michaeledward:

Would it be too much trouble to post the entire article?  I dont have an account with The Washington Post.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 10, 2005)

Props to Joe Scarborough for discussing this on his blog ....

We can't seem to escape news stories about what the new Secretary of State is doing and saying in the early weeks on the job. It seemed to me that she had headlines on MSNBC and CNN that changed every few hours, always positive.

Well, The Quarrantining of Dissent we experienced over the past two years during the election campaign worked so well, we are now applying similar restrictions to other countries as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9164-2005Feb8.html



> Scripted Follow-Up For Rice
> *State Dept., School Vetted Questions*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 17, 2007)

Has it been two years since this thread was last in play? Wow - Time Flies. Many of those who originally discussed this idea may be gone now ... but ... 

It's official.

You can't watch a speech by the President of the United States if you hold views different that the 'official views'. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/us/15eject.html?ex=1334289600&en=a5e627c00



> their lawyers filed an appeals brief arguing that their clients had the right to take action against Mr. Young and Ms. Weise precisely because the two held views different from Mr. Bush&#8217;s.


 
Two citizens arrived at an event  and were barred from attending because their car sported an anti-war bumper sticker. 

The lawsuit against those who barred the citizens from attendance is arguing that they 'may have been disruprtive' ~ which assumes actions before they take place.



> They excluded people from a White House event because they posed a threat of being disruptive,&#8221; said a lawyer for Mr. Casper, Sean Gallagher.


 
Wonderful logic. No more innocent until proven guilty, but instead 'guilty before taking any action at all'. Just like the terrorist trials taking place around the country.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Apr 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Has it been two years since this thread was last in play? Wow - Time Flies. Many of those who originally discussed this idea may be gone now ... but ...
> 
> It's official.
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps I misread something, but when I looked over the article, it read as if the two men who removed the dissenters worked for the Museum, or at least were part of the organizing team, which hosted the event.  It didn't even sound like a public location, so I'm doubtful that the First Amendment's going to help the protester's at all.  It's a very critical distinction, between being removed from an event hosted in a private, albeit open for the public, location and being removed for protesting at an open, public forum event.  

Sad that the Bush administration has been so Big Brotherly in its enforcement of such rights, and they've definitely crossed the line as this threat indicates.  IMHO.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 17, 2007)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Perhaps I misread something, but when I looked over the article, it read as if the two men who removed the dissenters worked for the Museum, or at least were part of the organizing team, which hosted the event. It didn't even sound like a public location, so I'm doubtful that the First Amendment's going to help the protester's at all. It's a very critical distinction, between being removed from an event hosted in a private, albeit open for the public, location and being removed for protesting at an open, public forum event.
> 
> Sad that the Bush administration has been so Big Brotherly in its enforcement of such rights, and they've definitely crossed the line as this threat indicates. IMHO.


 
Yes, the article is poorly written and edited. 

A careful re-reading the article will demonstrate that it was a meeting 
a) by the President 
b) about Social Security
c) held in an museum
d) a public event​The people removed were not employees of the museum, but rather they were barred from attending *by* employees of the museum. 

The original argument by attorneys representing the museum employees (the defendants) was that - in '92 - an attendee was barred from a meeting with H.W. Bush because she wore a 'Clinton' badge. That meeting was a privately sponsored item.


----------

