Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48
  1. #21  
    Reminds me of Chris Rock:

    "You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is a Chinese guy, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are name 'Bush,' '****' and 'Colon.' Need I say more?"
  2. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by skillllllz
    Yes, you are absolutely right! And before anyone jumps down your throat about her being completely unarmed, I'd like to point out that she was indeed armed. Armed with THE most dangerous weapon known to man. An open mind full of knowledge and opinions...

    You are also correct when you say we'd be "swiftly dealt with even you didn't actually harm anyone". Just as any of us would be "swiftly dealt with", so was she. But the problem is that she wasn't a threat to anyone physically. In fact she wasn't a threat to anyone. She's a threat to a power. Funny thing about powers... They don't like to be suppressed, it's only logical; how else would they be a power?

    All in all, I've always assumed this is a nation where you are not persecuted for what you are or believe. I also assumed that we are innocent until proven guilty. I guess that's where I made a huge mistake (you know what they say about assuming). I guess I should be mindless, and egocentric, and stay within the intellectual boundaries forced upon me.

    Actually, you know what? I think I'll just stay open minded, constantly in search for truth. After all, the truth is the truth. You can bend it, you can twist it, you can mask it. But in the end it is what it is.
    You're so blinded by your hatred of the President (as demonstrated by the tasteless graphic in your signature) that you can't even apply a little logic and common sense to this situation. This woman hasn't been prosecuted nor was she persecuted. She was treated as any other person is in the middle of a "situation". The authorities hustled her out of the area and began the process of determining what her intentions were and whether or not she broke any laws. Do you really think that the appropriate action would be to stop the First Lady's speech and straighten the whole thing out right then and there?

    Something else you should think about is that removing her as quickly as possible helped to protect her from other people in the crowd that might have reacted to what she was doing and attacked her. You know, kinda like what happened in the story posted by heberman.
  3. #23  
    Bush, Sr. was much better able to handle protestors shouting at him. Act 2 of this radio program (requires RealPlayer)
    http://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/04/257.html

    I'm amazed that some of you deem it appropriate to forcibly remove and then arrest someone shouting at such an event. If she had shouted, "I love you Bush! Woot!" do you *really* think she would've been dragged out and arrested? What if she had shouted, "Four more years!" I don't think so. She was removed for the content of her message, not because she was perceived as a threat.

    Nareau
  4. #24  
    Firstly, you are making a foolish mistake. Assuming I have "hatred" for the president based solely on a humorous image I choose to display on the Internet is immature and arrogant my dear friend. I do not "hate", hatred is not in me. I do, however, take a strong disliking to the way this presidency has been handling the various issues it has taken on. And now, I think that arresting someone for speaking is what's tasteless. We are suppose to be a nation that rises above this kind of behavior.

    Even if the charges are dropped at a later time it's still unacceptable. She had every right to be there and yes she may have interrupted the first lady's speech but let me ask you this... who the hell is the first lady when you strip her of the socioeconomic high horse she sits on? Just another woman; just another mother who loves her children. Well, if she has the right to stand in front of so many people and influence them, then so does she regardless of venue.

    Honestly, I believe the woman's question should have been embraced right then and there. In front of supporters. It's a valid question and a serious one that should have been addressed. An honest answer would only give the presidency further credibility if any. But no, her voice was promptly bleached out and no one in the audience rallied to hear an answer to the woman's question. Why? Maybe they don't care. Maybe they think she's wrong. Or even worse, maybe they saw the consequences she suffered for having a voice and just continued jumping off the bridge like everyone else.

    I'm sick of people taking everything for face value these days. Wake up. The fine print in people is found in there actions not their words.
    .
  5. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #25  
    The why question has been answered over and over. You may not like it or agree with it but the question has been answered.

    I'm the one that is immature huh? Not only is your graphic tacky it's offensive to woman and something that a 14 year old would like. Do you actually wear the T-Shirt in public?
  6. #26  
    Hmmmm, I found THIS to be very interesting...

    Hope it's not a repeat, I didn't get to read some of the latest posts because I remembered reading this and went to find the link.



    fp
    <a href=http://www.floydpinkerton.net>My Homepage</a><br>
    <a href=http://www.totaldialup.net>TotalDialup.com</a> My business<br>
    <a href=http://www.coverupsounds.com>Coverupsounds.com</a> (my small contribution)
  7. Theta's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    112 Global Posts
    #27  
    The mother had every right to say what she said at a political rally.

    It is the result of a extremely polarized society that the incident went so poorly. The crowd over-reacted, and the "men in suits" had two choices. Let the "ruckus" continue, and possibly see the mother physically hurt, or escort her out of the rally.

    Threats of arrest are not warranted obviously, but as a direct result of the polarized society, I take negative reporting about the current administration with a grain of salt - much like I took negative reports about former President Clinton by Rush Limbaugh with a grain of salt.

    The underlying question really is when (if at all) will the United States come back together as a single nation? There was a bit of a respite immediately after 9/11, but as soon as the primaries started for the 2004 election, that respite HAD to end.

    Does this polarization come as a result of the democrats perceived "stealing" of the presidency by George W Bush in the 2000 election (by the way, the votes were recounted, George W won - like it or not)? Or does it go much further back then that?

    Maybe if the democrats put up a series candidate in 2008, and they win, this country will once again see a day when mothers are not attacked for expressing free speach - regardless of which party they speak out against.


    But back to the "point" of the thread, "The death of free speech in the US", there are limits to the freedom of speech in the United States. Any situtation where what one says can lead to injury/death of people are prohibited. One *will* get arrested for standing up in a movie theatre and yelling "fire". The mother's statement, through no fault of her own, caused an incident that was threat to her safety. Had the "men in suits" not responded how they did, and she was beaten - or worse yet killed - the anti-Bush crowd would be yelling that the mother should have been escorted out by the "men in suits". It's the typical situtation this president is facing - damed if he does, damed if he doesn't. He knows this, especially with the media against him, so he is doing what he feels is right for the country. He knows full well that if he does something, he will be attacked for it, but if he doesn't do something, then he will be attacked for not taking action (or the "right" action as viewed in hindsight).

    It's sad, but its just the way politics are in this country today - no matter what party the politician is a member of.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by TxDot
    The why question has been answered over and over. You may not like it or agree with it but the question has been answered.

    I'm the one that is immature huh? Not only is your graphic tacky it's offensive to woman and something that a 14 year old would like. Do you actually wear the T-Shirt in public?
    Yes, I do wear the shirt in public. And what's quite amazing is how many people also find it humorous. These people happen to be adults of all races above the age of thirty and many of them are in fact women.

    I've noticed that people who actually find things like my shirt offencive tend to have fragile egos or they love to take things out of context just for arguments sake. I'm not even going to delve into the full pragmatics behind your statements, but 14 you say? That's quite interesting... Tell me, what business would a minor have expressing interest in either bush?
    .
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by TxDot
    You're making an assumption that the authorities knew exactly who this person was and what her intentions were. Given that the First Lady was speaking and a ruckus suddenly erupts, the authorities have no choice but to react by removing the person causing the ruckus from the presence of the First Lady. How do they know that the person doesn't intend to harm the First Lady?

    This mother has every right to speak out but she has to understand that not every venue is the right venue. This type of behavior at this type of venue is never going to be "well received" by the authorities nor should it be.

    This sums up a balanced argument for this woman's rights at that particular moment. Having free speech as a right carries with it a responsibility not to abrogate others' right to it, and Mrs. Bush had the floor at the moment. This is a "story" posted here to arouse anti-Bush sentiment. Try to tell me that a prostestor similarly placed at a Kerry rally wouldn't receive the same treatment from the security assigned to him.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    ENGLISH. Do you speak it?
    Yes do you?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  11. #31  
    I find it disagreeable. The tone of your writing also points to a dislike of Bush and those of us who are not of the "liberal" persuasion. Only a blind person does not see it.

    As for Kerry's reaction, it is based on emotion, not security. He goes so far as to question them on their political beliefs when confronted and name calling. His wife is not any better in her treatment of reporters who get tough on her.


    Ben
  12.    #32  
    Skillz....I couldn't have said it better

    "Yes, you are absolutely right! And before anyone jumps down your throat about her being completely unarmed, I'd like to point out that she was indeed armed. Armed with THE most dangerous weapon known to man. An open mind full of knowledge and opinions..."

    Information is the single thing the administration fears the most...
    From refusing to let flag draped coffins be photographed at Dover...
    ...to opposing ANY investigation of 9-11 including the commision...
    Thats why the Exiration of the Assualt Weapons Ban does not effect them...

    ...they fear soldiers mothers armed with words...
    Ask any of the illegal detainees at Quantanamo on the Hudson during the RNC

    Once again I say...
    If you are not outraged, you just aren't paying attention!
  13. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #33  
    You anti-Bush folks in this thread have done a wonderful job of demonstrating your "open minds".
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by tliskey
    IVE BEEN READING YOUR POSTS *********
    (Edit: cleanup, ronbo2000 9/19/2004)
    Hello. That was a very nice contribution. I am now going to report you to the moderators (something I never thought I would do). Hopefully they will ban you.
    Last edited by ronbo2000; 09/19/2004 at 11:29 AM.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Hello. That was a very nice contribution. I am now going to report you to the moderators (something I never thought I would do). Hopefully they will ban you.
    Woof, you know I hate to get involved in the serious discussions.....and I may be way off base here, because post's are always subject to interpretation, but I am guessing that tliskey may, I say may, not, care for your opinion. Please forgive me if I have misread his post in this regard.

    Wow

    Obviously I think that kind of stuff is really unacceptable. But the question remains.....do you HAVE a cocker spaniel? LOL KIDDDING!!!!!!!!!!!

    Congrats on a reasoned response to his flame. I am guessing you might have typed a few other responses before you settled on the one you sent. I know I might have.
    "Do the Chickens have large talons?" Napoleon Dynamite
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by ACDriver
    Woof, you know I hate to get involved in the serious discussions.....and I may be way off base here, because post's are always subject to interpretation, but I am guessing that tliskey may, I say may, not, care for your opinion. Please forgive me if I have misread his post in this regard.

    Wow

    Obviously I think that kind of stuff is really unacceptable. But the question remains.....do you HAVE a cocker spaniel? LOL KIDDDING!!!!!!!!!!!

    Congrats on a reasoned response to his flame. I am guessing you might have typed a few other responses before you settled on the one you sent. I know I might have.

    AC I actually had a cocker spaniel as a kid. She died about 20 years ago.

    Believe it or not the above was my first response. I laughed pretty hard though. I agree with his disagreement of my opinion but that is hardly the way to behave in a public forum.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  17. #37  
    People, no name calling or this thread will be closed.
  18. #38  
    Free speech is always under attack, both here and elsewhere. We do well to note every attack. The cited instance is a flagrant abuse of authority by zealous security people. That said, it is hardly a harbinger of the "death of free speech."

    Free speech is alive and kicking. I suggest that Mrs. Niederer understands that and that she deliberately created a scene to take advantage of that fact. By attempting to silence her, the thugs amplified her message.

    I suggest that we need a little proportionality on both sides. The security thugs do not need to treat a grieving mother as a terrorist. We need to recognize that, no matter how disproportionate their act, it was isolated, not part of a program. While all unnecssarily violent acts by government create fear, uncertainty, and doubt, we need not react the same to those that are incidental as to those that are systematic. While this administration and its sympathizers are unusually sensitive to criticism and their over-reactions frightening, they are not sufficiently organized or effective to quiet dissent.
    Indeed, the more they show their colors, the more they can expect.
    Last edited by whmurray; 09/19/2004 at 11:57 AM.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by ronbo2000
    People, no name calling or this thread will be closed.
    Thanks ronbo. That kind of drivel is unecessary.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  20. #40  
    We speak of high horses? Hey now, Miss Laura is a lot less of a high horse than Queen Ketchup. Queen Ketchup tells people to knock it off or shut up. Miss Laura is an asset to George W. Queen Ketchup is Prince Ketchup's pants.

    Was she really mistreated? Look at it again. The situation was properly handled and would have been handled the same way if it involved Ketchup. No different.

    As for your dislike of the president, it has been nailed down tight. There is no way you can convence any of us otherwise and that you are open minded. Will not happen.

    As for free speech, it is alive here - but take a look across the ocean either way and there are examples abounding.

    Ben
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions