Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48
  1.    #1  
    This was in todays local paper...
    God forbid there is ANY criticism of this administration....

    Mother of GI killed in Iraq arrested in 'chaotic' scene
    Published in the Asbury Park Press 9/17/04
    By SHARON WATERS
    STAFF WRITER

    The mother of a South Brunswick man killed in Iraq was arrested yesterday after interrupting a speech by first lady Laura Bush during a campaign event in a Hamilton firehouse.

    Sue Niederer wore a shirt with a photo of her son, Army Lt. Seth Dvorin, that read "President Bush You Killed My Son." Dvorin died in February, and Niederer said she asked the first lady why her daughters and the children of other politicians weren't serving in Iraq.

    "At that point, it became chaotic and I was pushed and shoved," said Niederer, of Hopewell. "They engulfed me. It wasn't plain, ordinary folks, but people in suits with earphones."

    The crowd chanted "Four more years" as Secret Service agents surrounded Niederer and escorted her outside. Once outside, Niederer said she was handcuffed and placed in a police van after trying to speak to reporters. She was charged with trespassing.

    "I had a ticket to get in," said Niederer, adding that Hamilton police kept her ticket as evidence. "I was in there legitimately."

    Niederer said she obtained a ticket by going to Republican campaign headquarters Tuesday, as a local newspaper had advised readers to do. She said some campaign workers recognized her as an outspoken anti-war activist, but still gave her a ticket. No one stopped Niederer when she checked in by name at yesterday's event.

    Before Niederer's outburst in the firehouse, some people standing near her commented on her shirt, expressing sympathy, Niederer said. After her shouted question, Niederer said at least one person spoke in her defense, saying, "She has a right to speak. She's a mother."

    A man standing near her noticed the Dvorin shirt and told her his son had served with the soldier in Iraq, Niederer said.

    Dvorin graduated in 1998 from South Brunswick High School. He was the son of East Brunswick resident Richard Dvorin, Niederer's ex-husband.

    Niederer has an Oct. 12 court date in Hamilton.
  2. #2  
    Very gestapo-ish.
  3. #3  
    At least they aren't pushing around and ripping up signs from a 3-year old like some Kerry supporters:

    By Robert Stacy McCain
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    A West Virginia man said yesterday that Democrats stole his family's Bush-Cheney campaign signs at an event featuring Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards.
    "They just pounced on us," said Phil Parlock, who took his 11-year-old son, Alex, and 3-year-old daughter, Sophia, to the Democratic rally at Tri-State Airport in Huntington, W.Va.
    Sophia became briefly famous yesterday when an Associated Press photo showing her in tears after Democrats tore her sign to pieces was posted on Matt Drudge's Web site, www.drudgereport.com.
    Click to learn more...
    "She was crying; they were pushing and shoving her," said Mr. Parlock, a Huntington real estate agent. "She was scared."
    Sophia is the youngest of 10 children in a proudly patriotic family. The oldest two Parlock children, a 22-year-old daughter and a 21-year-old son, are members of the West Virginia Army National Guard, and a third Parlock — who recently turned 18 — will be sworn into the guard tomorrow, Mr. Parlock said.
    The Parlocks went to Mr. Edwards' airport rally yesterday "to support the president," Mr. Parlock said, and brought nine Bush-Cheney signs with them.
    "We stood there quietly while Senator Edwards went through the receiving line," he said. Then, as the North Carolina Democrat prepared to leave, Mr. Parlock said, "I took out a few Bush-Cheney signs, gave one to Alex, and Sophia and I held up one jointly."
    Immediately, he said, the family was set upon by supporters of Mr. Edwards and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry — "mostly the painters union guys" — who "started stealing my signs." Soon, "old women and college students joined in the fracas," said Mr. Parlock, describing himself as "strictly a volunteer, grass-roots supporter" of the president. Mr. Parlock ran unsuccessfully for his local school board this year.
    After the family returned home from the rally yesterday, he said, a friend called to tell him about the AP photo on the Drudge site. "In the picture, you can see one of the painters union guys has a piece of one of my signs in his hand."
    A call to the Kerry-Edwards campaign last night was not returned.
    Anti-war demonstrators have complained in recent weeks that they have been manhandled by security agents at Bush-Cheney campaign events.
    What a bunch of losers.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  4. #4  
    A picture is worth a thousand word! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...0109091829&e=5

    Oh I'm not calling them losers! Definite winners!


    And the funny thing is the this news is not about Kerry supporters. It's about a mother who lost her son in a war. And I think she had a right to ask the question she asked.
  5. #5  
  6. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #6  
    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.
  7. KKenna's Avatar
    Posts
    418 Posts
    Global Posts
    419 Global Posts
    #7  
    I like that last one.

    We're supposed to be the most advanced nation, and this election has all the makings of a 5th grade student government election !!!

    I think Bush is a weiner-head and Kerry is a dork-a-mundus !!!

    Who wants to play Kill the Carrier ?!?!?
  8. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #8  
    The key difference here, Heberman, is that the sign-tearers in your example are just a bunch of local democrats who, unfortunately, took matters into their own hands. In TrySpammingMe's example, and many others that have been well-documented, it's men in suits, hired security guards, who are escorting these people out of events and arresting them on dubious grounds.

    There's a world of difference between citizens who wrongfully put down a dissenting opinion and official security guards, paid by our tax dollars, who misuse the law to supress freedom of expression.

    The Washington Times and Drudge offer this story in hopes that they can make people think the Kerry campaign is as guilty as Bush's of having "closed" sessions on the campaign trail, but that's not even close to the truth. Bush's people have kept a very tight leash on the press since he was elected, and it's well-known that he prescreens everyone who walks into one of these "talks," not just for the sake of his security, which is certainly necessary, but to weed out anyone who may not be "100%" in his favor. And he screens all of the questions people ask him at these events, just as he limits and controlls the questions asked of him at press conferences.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  9. #9  
    It seems to me that YOU are making the assumption.
    How do you define ruckus? From the description of the event provided it sounds like she simply shouted out a question. She did not jump up on a table and start shouting threats. If her presence or actions created an unsafe environment then she should be asked to leave but to grab her by the hair and drag her out of the place is excessive force when she had every right to be there in the first place. To then charge her with a crime that she is apparently not guilty of is a tremendous mistake if not an out and out abuse of authority.

    You can never ASSUME that someone INTENDS harm and use it against them. You either have reasonable cause to believe that they intend harm or you do not. And if you act against someone believing they intend harm then you MUST then justify your actions and show that reasonable cause. It is the basis of our law.
    If she had a weapon or made verbal threats then action could be taken. If she acted in a way that was excessively disruptive then she should be asked to leave and if she did not then she could be escorted out or charged with disturbance of the peace. If she acted to incite a riot then she could be arrested and removed. None of these things appear to be the case. The apparent reason behind her removal and arrest is simply because she spoke up in a public forum contrary to the interest of the speaker and they abused their power to remove her.

    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.
  10. #10  
    I was kind of shocked during the Democratic convention in Boston that protestors were only allowed to protest in a pre-defined area well away from the convention.
    The obvious excuse for something like this is to keep them from impeding traffic to/from the convention which I would support but to keep them away from the actual event where their protests would have any real impact is a violation of their rights to assemble in a peaceful protest.

    Can you imagine, eventually the only place you will be allowed to protest is in the privacy of your own home so that you do not disturb others with your politically incorrect beliefs. Oh, but be careful because you CAN be spied on in your own home as well if anyone in the federal government happens to believe you could ever be a threat to right-thinking people.

    Damn, drawn into another political discussion.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    What a bunch of losers.
    For some Bush activist to risk the well being of his 3 year old child in a transparent attempt to get attention, that is a loser for sure. Thats what you meant right?
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 09/17/2004 at 11:19 AM.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    For some Bush activist to risk the well being of his 3 year old child in a transparent attempt to get attention, that is a loser for sure. Thats what you meant right?

    Hey, I'm POSITIVE republicans would've never done that! Hair pulling? Now that's entirely a different story!
  13. #13  
    Heberman, please tell me that you did not intend to belittle actions taken against Sue Niederer by comparing them to what happened to the Parlock family.
    Perhaps it is just the way I am interpreting what you said and not what you actually meant to do.

    It is obviously not right for something like either of the two mentioned events to occur.
    People have a right to their opinions no matter how ill-considered others may think them to be. Their right to express their opinion in a non-violent manner should be protected.

    There is no weighing of the events. One cannot justify on bad act because of another and both events should be taken and treated seriously. This has nothing to do with which side of the political fence one sits, it has to do with constitutionally protected freedoms. Citizens with opposing beliefs to the Parlock's do not have a right to interfere with them just as the government does not have the right to interfere with citizens making a peaceful protest.

    Honestly though, anyone bringing a 3 year old to a political event is an *****. The possibility of violence is well demonstrated and he should have been well aware that even though it is wrong, there could be danger to his child.
    Arrest those who were involved in the pushing and destruction of his signs but have him investigated for putting his child into a situation any reasonable person would realize carries the potential for danger.
  14. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by the_nite_owl
    It seems to me that YOU are making the assumption.
    How do you define ruckus? From the description of the event provided it sounds like she simply shouted out a question. She did not jump up on a table and start shouting threats. If her presence or actions created an unsafe environment then she should be asked to leave but to grab her by the hair and drag her out of the place is excessive force when she had every right to be there in the first place. To then charge her with a crime that she is apparently not guilty of is a tremendous mistake if not an out and out abuse of authority.

    You can never ASSUME that someone INTENDS harm and use it against them. You either have reasonable cause to believe that they intend harm or you do not. And if you act against someone believing they intend harm then you MUST then justify your actions and show that reasonable cause. It is the basis of our law.
    If she had a weapon or made verbal threats then action could be taken. If she acted in a way that was excessively disruptive then she should be asked to leave and if she did not then she could be escorted out or charged with disturbance of the peace. If she acted to incite a riot then she could be arrested and removed. None of these things appear to be the case. The apparent reason behind her removal and arrest is simply because she spoke up in a public forum contrary to the interest of the speaker and they abused their power to remove her.
    I intentionally used the term ruckus because it is a pretty innocuous term.

    To say that "you can never assume that someone intends harm and use it against them" is silly. Tell you what, go grab a knife (or any other weapon) and walk into your local shopping mall and act like you are going to "harm" someone and see if you're aren't swiftly dealt with even you didn't actually harm anyone. I am not trying to imply that this woman did anything like this. I'm only pointing out that your argument doesn't stand.

    There are many people that the authorities would "act first and ask questions later" because of who they are. I would say that the First Lady falls into this category.

    I'll bet that in the end there are no charges filed against this woman or if they have alreaady been filed I bet they are dropped.
  15. #15  
    who else would like to bet that womans name shows up on a no fly list?
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    who else would like to bet that womans name shows up on a no fly list?
    would that we could get your name on a no fly list.

    Seriously though, if you were to switch things around and make it a Kerry speech and a republican protestor the same thing would happen. High profile people are always protected and the authorities almost always react on the side of overzealousness to avoid allowing something bad to happen.

    Not to mention it was impolite to interupt the speech. She could have waited until Mrs. Bush was finished.
    “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. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by TxDot
    I intentionally used the term ruckus because it is a pretty innocuous term.

    To say that "you can never assume that someone intends harm and use it against them" is silly. Tell you what, go grab a knife (or any other weapon) and walk into your local shopping mall and act like you are going to "harm" someone and see if you're aren't swiftly dealt with even you didn't actually harm anyone. I am not trying to imply that this woman did anything like this. I'm only pointing out that your argument doesn't stand.

    There are many people that the authorities would "act first and ask questions later" because of who they are. I would say that the First Lady falls into this category.

    I'll bet that in the end there are no charges filed against this woman or if they have alreaady been filed I bet they are dropped.
    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.
    .
  18. #18  
    skillllz, couldn't help smiling on 'Good bush/bad bush' pic!
  19. #19  
    It's from a T-Shirt I bought at the mall. Search for "good bush bad bush" on google. =)
    .
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    would that we could get your name on a no fly list.
    ENGLISH. Do you speak it?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions