And that's why the thugs in Iraq still resist us, because they can't stand the thought of free societies. They understand what freedom means. See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction. --Speech, October 3, 2003
Free nations are hopeful societies. --Speech, September 7, 2004
It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free. --First Presidential Debate, 2004
And so, I don't think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all. --Second Presidential Debate, 2004
I worry that President Bush just uses “free” as shorthand for “good,” or something. My debate question for him would be, “What do you believe are our inviolate, sovereign rights as citizens?” I doubt he’d have a coherent answer. I mean, the normal thing to say when defending the Patriot Act is that it doesn’t abridge our rights more than necessary, or doesn’t abridge them excessively. Since the Patriot Act clearly does abridge our rights to privacy, and to speedy and open trials, this implies he doesn’t consider them rights at all.
On the other hand, free nations are peaceful, hopeful, don’t develop weapons of mass destruction, don’t execute people, and don’t attack other free nations.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes, it is rather sadly ironic to think that America must not be free since we develop weapons of mass destruction and execute people. Even innocent ones.
Ooops.
I also note that in TX, the Houston Police Department recently found on the order of 8,000 boxes of evidence. Apparently this stuff is not well catalogued and they aren't sure if there is evidence in the boxes that was not turned over to attorneys during trials. They issued a request to the governor to stall the executions of anyone convicted and given a death sentence based on cases that used evidence provided by or processed by the Houston crime lab.
Since that request was sent in, two people have been executed in TX who were convicted based on evidence processed in Houston.
A third is awaiting execution in the next week or so (or maybe it already happened and I missed it).
I know the current governor is not GWB. But this is TX justice and it is one of the most GOP-controlled states in the country, given that they had the power to redistrict the state out of sequence and with the clear intent of making it harder to elect anyone but a Republican.
[ October 09, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Trondheim (Member # 4990) on :
quote: My debate question for him would be, “What do you believe are our inviolate, sovereign rights as citizens?”
What are the chances that he would answer "The right to bear arms."?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Unless you happen to be slightly Arab-looking, of course.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
No, he'd say you have the right to free speech, as long as you do so in the designated "zone" and don't interfere with a political convention.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:don’t develop weapons of mass destruction,
Doesn't America still develop WMDs?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The curious thing about Bush's plan is that I think it should be pretty clear that freedom would only make it easier for terrorists to operate. The freer the country the less capable of cracking down on them the government is.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
But that's partly balanced out by the improved flow of information in a truly free society. Remember, it was speedy communication with the passengers of Flight 93 that (possibly) prevented a fourth destructive crash landing on Sept. 11.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote:Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Our Nukes aren't weapons of Mass Destruction, ours are Weapons of Mass Freedom!
Posted by cyruseh (Member # 1120) on :
ok, maybe this doesnt go along with this thread, but "rights of privacy"? Is that somewhere in the constitution or bill of rights or declaration, that we have a right to privacy? Its just like 'freedom of expression' I dont recall that being anywhere, yet I hear it thrown around all the time. So, if there is a right of privacy, as explained in any government document that has been accepted by the population I would love to read it. Dont get me wrong, I am probably one of the strongest advocates of privacy of the citizens.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
quote:Do terrorists attack the citizens of countries that are free specifically because those countries are free?
No, I'm talking about where the terrorists live, not where they attack. As we have seen in Iraq, a lot of freedom really makes terrorism easier - because the government is less capable of doing whatever it wants to stop them.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: No, he'd say you have the right to free speech, as long as you do so in the designated "zone" and don't interfere with a political convention.
You mean like at the DNC? Because that was the only convention that had actual "fenced" in zones...with actual barricades.
The RNC was the one where you had the free speech even include "I want to kill the president" as protected.
I'm sick of Liberal censorship.
I reserve the right to slander all the Vietnam Vets of this country, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let the Vietnam Vets who have a "less than stellar" opinion of me have those same freedoms.
Hey Kerry, why don't you ask the FCC to restrict it again, you dumb@ss.
[ October 10, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:The RNC was the one where you had the free speech even include "I want to kill the president" as protected.
That's a lie, no matter what president you're talking about. Making public statements about killing the president can and would mean a visit from either FBI or local law enforcement, no matter when or where you said it.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No, it's true, and yes they were visited by the authorities and taken to jail, but some NYC liberal judge decided in once decision to "liberate" all 1000+ jailed protesters, and demanded the police release them all, and then imposed a massive fine for every day they weren't released.
Google results to come.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
So, you are admitting that they didn't have the "freedom" to just say whatever they wanted like that? And then a "liberal" judge, one of those "liberal censors" you mentioned in your post, let them go on the grounds of free speech? That's a whole lot different than saying that the RNC allowed such behavior, since it obviously did not. You're really not very good at spin, especially when trying to spin a lie.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Actually No, the people with the sign that read "NYC welcomes the RNC with "I'm gonna Kill the President" weren't jailed.
Certain protestors who actually broke the law were.
I don't know how you missed it. It was on the side of a building right outside of the RNC on a big banner.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Sorry to interrupt.
Chad, I'm still awaiting your response in the War Crimes thread.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I think you have a reading disorder or something. None of those links say that the RNC allowed the use of "I want to kill the president" protests. As a matter of fact, two of those links show that RNC protesters were actually not given due process and were held for longer than they should have been, which indicates that the RNC convention was even harder on what you would consider "free speech." Do you not realize that saying "I want to kill the president" is an arrestable offense, or are you just trying to find some way to cover up the little lie you told a few posts ago about the RNC allowing such obviously illegal statements? Either way, Chad, you are digging an embarrassing hole for yourself that could have been remedied by simply saying "whoops, I was wrong" from the start.
Incidentally, you seem to have the same problem Bush does, which is not being able to admit to a mistake.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
When you have 500+ idiots getting arrested within one 24 hour period, it tends to slow the judicial system down.
By the way, that Judge was overruled thank God the next day based on that very arguement.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
But a picture is worth a thousand words, so here's thousands of reasons I'm not a Democrat
Well, be glad you can use the word Liberal, which is the modern form of the word nigger for conservatives.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Question- Why is it that people who have gone to Bush rallies with pro-Kerry signs or t shirts have been arrested? Also, why do they have to sign a loyalty pledge of sorts before being allowed to attend?
[ October 10, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: You're still mad you can't say nigger?
Well, be glad you can use the word Liberal, which is the modern form of the word nigger for conservatives.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Question- Why is it that people who have gone to Bush rallies with pro-Kerry signs or t shirts have been arrested? Also, why do they have to sign a loyalty pledge of sorts before being allowed to attend?
People holding signs weren't arrested. People breaking the law were.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Not according to what I heard... I will elaborate more, maybe later... I have to force myself to go to work now.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:But a picture is worth a thousand words, so here's thousands of reasons I'm not a Democrat
The upstanding democrats
Actually, that's 82 or 84 pictures, and about 500 words used total to describe them.
Are you saying that anyone who protests Bush/Cheney is a Democrat? If not with "us" then against "us," eh? Great policy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Me, I'm more curious whether Chad actually objects to the content and behavior shown in EVERY picture, or whether only certain specific pictures display reasons not to be a Democrat.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
That might not be "what you heard", but I encourage you to look at the pictures.
Burning a large dragon without permits is to say dangerous, and also illegal.
Laying down in the streets to blook traffic, etc.
But then again, maybe some people here thinking blocking access to abortion clinics is totally legal and that none of them should be arrested as well, right?
Or do you have a problem with people keeping others from getting an abortion by blocking entrances to clinics, etc?
They are both wrong and both illegal.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Lawyers have criticized the indiscriminate nature of the arrests.
"They would just round up groups with these orange, plastic nets and arrest many innocent people in the process, including members of the press, people going to the movies, shoppers coming out of stores and businessmen going home from work," Maxian said.
Whoops, Chad. Seems you were telling an untruth again.
quote:“They didn’t inform us why we were being arrested,” she said. “At least I didn’t hear it.”
Starr said the arrest “was not justified in anyway. We weren’t violent. We were absolutely peaceful.”
If police were under the impression that the protesters were doing something wrong, Starr said they should have been arrested at the site of the protest, should have been told what they were being arrested for and not “shuffled down the street.”
Following her arrest, Starr said all of the people with her were placed in plastic cuffs and were bused to Pier 57, a large, dirty building with concrete floors. The holding area was a former bus terminal.
“It was absolutely inhumane and not a proper place to be holding people,” Starr said.
One of the individuals being held was a girl dressed up in a black dress. Starr said the girl had been stepping out of her apartment to go out when she was swept up with a group and arrested.
What a lovely world when Miranda laws are so loosely applied. On top of that, a girl leaving her apartment got arrested in the mix just for walking outside. Yep, pure justice.
quote:"There have been some exaggerated claims and outright falsehoods," Kelly said.
NYPD officials declined a second request to allow an AP reporter to tour the site Wednesday, saying officers were too busy processing the nearly 1,000 people arrested the day before.
Exaggerations and falsehoods, but no press was allowed to check it out. How honest.
quote:Among them was an AP photo messenger, who was taken in along with a group of protesters when police broke up a demonstration that she and a colleague were covering.
quote:It now has come to light the Republican National Committee - NOT the City of New York - leased the Pier 57 facility and arranged for its use as a prison for peaceful demonstrators unlawfully rounded up by police. The parents of one illegally detained demonstrator made the discovery after checking with the NYPD to find out who was managing Pier 57, and was told the Certificate of Occupancy and Fire Safety Inspection Certificate were issued to the Republican National Committee.
"Hi. I'm George Bush, and I approve of this prison."
Are you ready to just admit you made a mistake here, Chad, or are you going to dig more holes for yourself?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:But then again, maybe some people here thinking blocking access to abortion clinics is totally legal and that none of them should be arrested as well, right?
Or do you have a problem with people keeping others from getting an abortion by blocking entrances to clinics, etc?
They are both wrong and both illegal.
Actually, protesting in front of a clinic so the people going in have to pass directly by is legal in most cases. Obstruction is illegal no matter what the case.
Funny how you've gone from claiming that the RNC was allowing people to say they wanted to kill the president to talking about obstruction of traffic, though. Convenient change of subject there, buddy. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Just the breaking of law photos. The ones that really portray Hatred and you can see it.
The ones where you could photoshop in a KKK outfit or burning cross and swear you're looking at a legitimate photo of a racist rally.
There's enough hatred portrayed by the people in those photos to beat the KKK hands down.
That is what makes me sick. Their hatred. Their rage.
That's not me, nor representative of the feelings I wan't governing this country.
I don't hate enough to be part of the crowd in those pictures.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
What I don't understand is why people protested the RNC. I mean sure... they don't like Bush... but each party has their convention. Seems like a lot of work just to disrupt the democratic process...
I suppose I could KINDA understand republicans protesting if they didn't support the nomination of Bush... but democrats?? Each side gets to have their own candidate... Republicans chose Bush, Democrats chose Kerry.... I wouldn't understand Republicans protesting the choice of Kerry as the Democratic candidate either.
*shrugs* I hear a lot of people bashing Bush for not admitting mistakes... but come on, I haven't heard Kerry admit mistakes either. Ya know what, maybe he has. I'm sure someone will tell me if he did.
And good for you CStroman for standing up for what you believe in. The level of sarcasm that goes on here is frustrating (not SO much in THIS thread). My own experience with it has really gone a long way to start to sour me on hatrack completely. I just have to remind myself that there really are some nice people here and the mean few are really that.. few.
By the way... I think protesting is okay. Lying in the streets is not. I still don't understand the RNC protests...
Oh well.
-Katarain
[ October 10, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Katarain ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Actually, protesting in front of a clinic so the people going in have to pass directly by is legal in most cases. Obstruction is illegal no matter what the case.
Funny how you've gone from claiming that the RNC was allowing people to say they wanted to kill the president to talking about obstruction of traffic, though. Convenient change of subject there, buddy.
Um...the people arrested WERE blocking traffic.
Doh! Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Katarin hit the nail on the head. Compare the protestors at the DNC (and the laws regulating them to protest behind cement barricades with actual chain link fences) to those at the RNC with their blatant disregard for the law or for the right to hold a RNC.
I couldn't believe the level of hatred on parade at the RNC.
But that is just my opinion.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Not everyone was, or did you not read what I posted. Stepping out of your apartment is not obstructing traffic. Covering the protests for the press is not obstructing traffic. Some protesters weren't even aware of what they were being arrested for.
Are you seriously going to disregard all of that? Are you still not going to admit that your original lie that the RNC allowed statements like "I want to kill the president" was in fact a lie? Change the subject all you want, Chad, but the fact remains that the city of New York was fined for behavior that was unacceptable for the crime. We are protected by law against excessive punishment as citizens, and yet here are loads of citizens who were treated excessively just for coming to the RNC. What's more, the RNC funded it by paying rent for the place where a lot of the excessive treatment went on.
How are you able to ignore this?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:*shrugs* I hear a lot of people bashing Bush for not admitting mistakes... but come on, I haven't heard Kerry admit mistakes either. Ya know what, maybe he has. I'm sure someone will tell me if he did.
And I'm sure you wouldn't believe it if someone told you. Are you ignoring my posts about the treatment the protesters got and the enabling the RNC gave the police to treat people that way?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I probably would believe it, actually.
And I wasn't ignoring anything. I don't read all of the threads here. And the particular post you are referring to in THIS thread was posted while I was still typing.
It disturbs me that the RNC paid for that area.
But I still don't get why they [the protesters] were there in the first place.
-Katarain
[ October 10, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Katarain ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Wait wait, this is too good.
You're saying that the people weren't breaking the law below the post of photos of people actually BREAKING the law (priceless).
Then you post how "obstruction" is illegal, again under the post of photos of people obstructing traffic.
Pack of chewing gum to mask your bad breath while screaming, and gnashing your teeth - .79c
Train ticket to take you down to NYC to object to the democratic process - $3.50
Having your @ss arrested and thrown in jail because you're an idiot breaking the law - Priceless
For everything else...there's democrats.
[ October 10, 2004, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:But I still don't get why they [the protesters] were there in the first place
Pick just about any issue in politics today, and you can practically garuntee that there will be protesters for it. That is simply a fact of politics today. There is no one reason for protesters at both the DNC and RNC. After all, why would Republicans go to protest about a nomination they have no control over? Why would Democrats or non-Republicans protest about national issues at a Republican convention?
To yell about what makes them outraged. That's pretty much it.
[ October 10, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Are you ignoring my posts about the treatment the protesters got and the enabling the RNC gave the police to treat people that way?
yeah they were treated "horribly". I even heard they were required to watch Kerry's DNC speech over and over and over.
I would have sued. Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Chad, you are a liar. That is all. I never said that all of the protesters were innocent. I said that innocent people were rounded up along with the people who were doing things illegal, and that all of them were subjected to excessive punishment that earned the city of New York a fine. Your attempts to not only twist what I said into something I didn't, as well as your blatant changing of the subject away from your original lie that the RNC allowed people to claim they wanted to kill the president, is downright sickening. You are skipping over the truths about the issue and just getting right to the name-calling and partisan-bashing. You aren't weighing the circumstances and judging on the merits of the situation. Instead, you are claiming that anything a non-Republican group does in protest is automatically illegal and deserving of the worst treatment possible. You are ignoring that the RNC themselves paid for the facility where the unconstitutional treatment took place, because it doesn't fit into your partisan mudslinging.
I haven't once demonized Republicans as a whole in this thread, but you've done nothing but demonize anyone not Republican. You are doing nothing but trolling. The RNC is just as culpable in their dealing with protesters as the DNC is, but you are unwilling to admit it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: After all, why would Republicans go to protest about a nomination they have no control over? Why would Democrats or non-Republicans protest about national issues at a Republican convention?
Yeah. Seems pretty stupid to me. On both sides.
I don't think the idea that the protestors at the RNC were a little more rabid is exactly news. I don't find it surprising. People REALLY hate Bush.
What I do NOT like is Bush-haters attacking Bush-supporters in any way. Take the recent debate thread... the way I was treated there actually made me feel BAD! How sad is that--letting someone on the Internet upset me?? After being asked to state my views on the subject, I finally gave in and did so... I also explained how I did not like to debate and they were free to disagree, of course, but they couldn't expect me to argue.. That wasn't good enough. I had some pretty not-nice replies. One person even said something how debating is the only way to refine your opinions and see if they mean anything.. well, I'm more of an essayist... a writer.. I don't do well on the fly in a debate.. (and I was distracted by other things) Finally, I said I wasn't going to argue--that I was tired of it.. and THEN I replied to someone ELSE who had said something to me--totally non-argumentative, and I simply responded... and then I got told (in what I imagine to be a very nasty way) I thought you were done?
*sigh* I just left the thread then. I read the posts, but I just stayed out of it. It's ironic that just a couple of days before I had expressed that Hatrack was really growing on me.
This thread perhaps isn't the best place to say that... it's just really bothered me.... and I wish that people would just be NICE.. and not so darn sarcastic when they don't agree. State your views...but must you tack on that little sarcastic comment at the end?
-Katarain
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Katarain, in all fairness, Chad is doing the same thing to posters he disagrees with. It's not limited to those who don't support Bush.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:This thread perhaps isn't the best place to say that... it's just really bothered me.... and I wish that people would just be NICE.. and not so darn sarcastic when they don't agree. State your views...but must you tack on that little sarcastic comment at the end?
I'm sorry you felt bad, Katarin. You have every right to support who you want. I have a problem with Chad's obviously false sense of how things operate, and I've pretty much explained how what he claims simply isn't true. I agree that the protesting at both conventions is silly, which is why I'd neither support nor take part in it. The freedom we are allowed to be able to protest is what matters, and in both cases there were problems regarding the treatment and accessibility to protesters of the convention.
Chad is unwilling to admit this, and that is what I have a problem with here.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Megan, I realized when I read my post that I shouldn't have said only Bush haters shouldn't attack Bush supporters. It shouldn't happen EITHER way.. and for good measure.. I'll throw in the independants.
I don't agree with all of Chad's methods.. but I do admire that he really sticks up for his beliefs... (It is good to admit a mistake once in a while if you make them, though...) I'm just saying that it is hard to do when you've got a half a dozen people all shouting that you're wrong..
Can't we all just get along??? Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Most people on this board call me Katarin. It's happened twice already on this thread alone..
It's really okay.. but it's happened SO often, that I thought I'd point it out just this once..
I'm definitely not trying to be snotty, but it's Katarain. It's a variation of Katarina... which is my typical "Net" name, but it's often taken on the web, so I use the alternate Katarain on most websites.
Of course, if you want to add the A to the end and call me Katarina, that's cool too.
-Katarain
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Katarain, I agree with you, though in general I find hatrack to be more civilized in its disagreements than other arenas. I know the feeling, though. I typically read political threads, but hardly ever post in them for that reason.
While I admire folks who stick up for their beliefs, I'd admire them more if they did it with less vitriol and more thoughtful consideration. That's one of the things that I've LOVED about hatrack: seeing the opposing viewpoints (well, opposing to my own, anyway) thoroughly and thoughtfully considered. That's why I continue to read the threads, despite the noticable increase in screaming matches lately.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Megan, I agree with you, too. (See, happy family.)
I really shouldn't let one bad experience sour me completely on Hatrack. I really like it here.
I'm perfectly willing to let other people disagree with me. I don't take it personally, and I don't feel a need to correct them in their views. So when I, in turn, express my views, I expect the same treatment. I suppose I made people angry with what I thought were pretty innocuous jokes in the other thread. Considering the mean jokes on the other side, I didn't think mine were so bad.. *shrugs*
-Katarain
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Actually, none of the DNC protesters did anything illegal and didn't need to be arrested.
It was the RNC protesters that broke the law. And were held in a facility large enough to encorporate them.
Finally, nothing unconstitutional or wrong was done to the protesters and as far as I have been able to tell, there exists no lawsuit by anyone against the city or RNC on any grounds.
The protesters should have been thrown in jail with the rest of the "thugs", but instead were taken to a place where only protesters were held.
Why?
Because they're smarter than me and you. You see, when you are wearing a shirt that says "I hate Bush" or "I'm Gay and I hate Bush" and you take that protester and you put them in a cell with Drunken Bush Supporter "bubba" or the Gay Hating Gang member "Slash-T" what do you think will happen to them?
You are actually saying that the jails should have been completely full of these lawbreakers and mixed with the general population of the NYPD precinct Jails.
Stupid, stupid move.
And you actually post quotes from people arguing that is was "inhumane" the way they were held in an abandoned warehouse?
The NON-Law breaking DNC protesters were confined to WORSE outside the DNC and they had broken NO laws. We're talking about cement barricades with Chain link fense around them. And THAT was the protesters area.
Your argument is as absurd as it is funny.
Yeah, those DNC protester's deserved to be thrown in jail with other common criminals. How dare they bus them to an abandoned warehouse with other like minded lawbreakers.
Give me a break. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
CStroman...but what about the NON-protestors that were rounded up with them??
-Katarain
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Actually, none of the DNC protesters did anything illegal and didn't need to be arrested."
Hm. Chad, let me make a suggestion, one that may well serve you in good stead if you take it to heart: before you say anything, spend thirty seconds thinking about whether it's provably false or not. If you think it is, spend another thirty seconds determining whether a quick Google search can prove it false.
This one minute of reflection would prevent you from jamming your head up your nether regions so often. Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
BTW Tom, how's the view up there? (think before you post attacks against other posters directly)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Now everyone, please, let Chad speak. He's performing a valuable service for all Hatrackers in showing us exactly what Bush supporters want to see in a president. Think of him as Mini-Bush.
RNC protestors were very naughty and deserved to be rounded up and stuck somewhere. Observing their personal liberties would take too darn much time, actually charging them or letting them call their lawyers would just get complicated, and everyone knows the Miranda from cop shows anyway. The people that got rounded up along with them? They weren't really hurt, and anyway that's the price you pay for order. The comparisons to Guantanamo Bay are just silly, since the protestors got released eventually.
Listen to the media about Iraq? They're all Bush-haters with no clue what's going on over there. Do like Chad and Bush do, totally ignore the media completely, along with the obviously brainwashed military leaders and investigative committees, and just believe the reports that tell you how rosy everything is. Oh, and when the liberals cave and admit that some of the media is biased, and they might not be completely right? That means we won, because we'll never admit to the slightest mistake no matter what it is. That would make us look weak.
I urge everyone here to do a search for everything posted by member #6872 and read his posts carefully. That's what you'll be voting for in a few weeks. That's exactly it. This may be what you want, and that's fine.
Or, possibly, that's what you'll be voting against.
[ October 10, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: CStroman...but what about the NON-protestors that were rounded up with them??
That happens everywhere mobs gather and although not the best thing, happens everywhere in the world and is understandable (unless you are the person who made the decisions on whether to be there or not).
The police have the responsibility to STOP people from breaking the law and to apprehend those that do.
How do they know if those people broke the law or not as the rest did?
They don't, they arrest everyone who appears to be engaged in the illicit behavior and remove them so the threat of continued illicit behavior is not continued.
Everytime there is a mob of people and some nutjob decides to turn it "illegal" by his actions, the police have to GO IN and stop it and uphold the law.
I'm sure those apprehended who were innocent (if in fact they were because all we have is their testimony to go on) were brought before a judge, gave their case and released.
Where do you think "Wrong place, wrong time" comes into play?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"(think before you post attacks against other posters directly)"
Trust me, I did. You have a habit of posting things which are, to put this generously, factually inadequate. This will continue to plague you for as long as you do not take steps to avoid this behavior, since people will even ignore the valid arguments you might make in order to point out your obvious errors; it's a fact of human nature, I'm afraid.
You couple this with a tendency to speak in absolutes and generalities: "Democrats" instead of "some Democrats," or "none" instead of "few."
When these two tendencies are combined, it becomes very easy for someone to point out that your generalization is in fact in error. If this happens too often, it will begin to affect your reputation.
Ergo, I felt it appropriate to suggest to you -- as one of your defenders on this site, mind you -- that you pause to consider whether what you say is in fact something that anyone with a search engine can verify on their own before you say it, and that, if it is, that you verify it for yourself before writing checks that you cannot cash.
[ October 10, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now everyone, please, let Chad speak. He's performing a valuable service for all Hatrackers in showing us exactly what Bush supporters want to see in a president. Think of him as Mini-Bush.
Unnecessarily inflammatory. You want me to paint all Kerrey supporters with Moore's brush?
Dagonee
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Chris Bridges,
That kind of post is exactly what I was talking about. Here you are saying that ALL Bush supporters MUST be like Chad--being very sarcastic throughout.
Doesn't anybody see that Bush haters use the same type of tactics? Does that mean you're all alike? Is the level of behavior from some Bush haters what we have to expect if Kerry is elected?
-Katarain
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I wasn't speaking of Bush's supporters. I was speaking of Mr. Bush. Some of the very attitudes and personal blindnesses I perceive in Mr. Bush are exemplified in CStroman's style of posting. Same overly general statements. Same habit of only going with the "proof" he favors. Same dismissal of counterclaims without evidence.
However, you are correct. I was unnecessarily inflammatory, and I apologize. CStroman, has, a couple of times to my knowledge, admitted to mistakes on his part, so the comparison isn't entirely accurate.
(edited to add: and of course in my first post I wrote "what Bush supporters want to see," which was indeed overgeneralizing on my part and well worth being called on. Please change that to "what we'll be voting for.")
[ October 10, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I see my policy of ignoring political threads was sound. I'll try to apply it more successfully.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Whatever, Dag. This is an important clash about our nation's future. You can't expect people to constantly stay cool with so much at stake.
(Note that letting yourself get carried away from time to time is very different from a Baldar-esque bridge-burning attitude.)
Katarain - I don't hate Bush. Or CStroman, for that matter.
I strongly suspect Mr. Bush would be more fun to talk to. He loves his family and I believe he truly cares about the country and the direction it's going in.
It happens that I strongly disagree with many of the steps he has taken towards that direction, and it is extremely frustrating when the obvious (to me) dangers of those steps are not only dismissed by Mr. Bush and his administration -- at least those of his administration that have not resigned in protest -- but aren't even on their radar.
There are an awful lot of people who support Mr. Bush. Roughly half of them, in fact. Many if not most of them are intelligent people who like the way things are going (or at least appreciate the direction, if not all the methods). I would not care to lump them all together in any regard, as that would be a disservice to them all.
I admit that CStroman pushes the wrong buttons with me. His arguing style seems to match the exact same qualities that terrify me in our president. In a very real sense, arguing with him is like arguing with the President himself, and in a sloppy, sarcastic way that was the point I was trying to make.
[ October 10, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I absolutely LOVED that CNN article.
What is funny is that out of a total of 200 protesters there were 4 arrests. 4!
And then when you read the article and the people that were protesting...NONE of them were republicans it appears. No NRA, No Pro-Lifers, No Anti-Gay (I'm pretty sure there were 3 or 4 there by a photo I saw of the idiot "godhatesfags.com" people) but were anti-government, anarchists, anti-authority, anti-death penalty, anti-war, etc.
Well, at least our wackos (if there were any republican ones) were far outnumbered by the ones at the RNC.
I feel a little better. 1000+ arrests vs. 4.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"In a very real sense, arguing with him is like arguing with the President himself...."
Nah. Chad can use standard English when he needs to.
------
BTW, Chad, out of interest, what do you think Republicans would have to protest at the DNC? I submit for your approval the concept that protests are generally conducted against the party in power,. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wasn't actually talking about the RNC... I was talking about at actual Bush rallies. http://www.mikemalloy.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=12084 I have to find other sources. Sorry, Katarain if I might have been snarky in the other thread. It's just that this makes me so ANGRY... The more I read about Bush's policies, the angrier I get...
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
hey Chad...
i don't know why i'm doing this, but having just read the entire thread i simply cannot resist ripping into a few statements.
quote:And then when you read the article and the people that were protesting...NONE of them were republicans it appears
i haven't looked at all the pictures on that link, but i looked at about 10 screens of them and i didn't see anything indicating the people were democrats - not even a kerry poster.
quote:Well, at least our wackos (if there were any republican ones) were far outnumbered by the ones at the RNC.
it amazes me that your reaction to massive protests against the candidate you support is to conclude that democrats are wackos - never mind the fact that his actions over the past 4 years might have done something to piss people off.
quote:You see, when you are wearing a shirt that says "I hate Bush" or "I'm Gay and I hate Bush" and you take that protester and you put them in a cell with Drunken Bush Supporter "bubba" or the Gay Hating Gang member "Slash-T" what do you think will happen to them?
that's an interesting interpretation of due process, maybe we should just make a law that says if you're wearing inflammatory t-shirts at political functions you should get beat up without a trial or anything like that.
quote:The NON-Law breaking DNC protesters were confined to WORSE outside the DNC and they had broken NO laws. We're talking about cement barricades with Chain link fense around them.
of course they weren't being held against their will now were they? you could go freeze to death in antarctica and it would hardly be the fault of god for creating cold weather, you'd be the idiot who went there.
quote:I couldn't believe the level of hatred on parade at the RNC.
again, have you ever asked why this might be the case? i know it's easy to label people who act strangely as wackos but every once in awhile people's reactions have a cause. (and please dont straw man me with something about how people burning dragons can't be defended or whatever)
quote:That is what makes me sick. Their hatred. Their rage.
That's not me, nor representative of the feelings I wan't governing this country
...and again. you'd prefer to have someone governing the country who inspires that type of hatred, rather than exemplifies it?
quote:But then again, maybe some people here thinking blocking access to abortion clinics is totally legal and that none of them should be arrested as well, right?
what the heck are you talking about? when has anyone on this board ever said that? if you're going to construct parodies of your opponents viewpoints, at least give us the courtesy of not pinning them on US.
quote:I'm sick of Liberal censorship.
i take it you don't watch FOX very often...
argh. ok, it's out of my system (for now)
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: ...and again. you'd prefer to have someone governing the country who inspires that type of hatred, rather than exemplifies it?
I would think not hating would be the best case.
But hey, it's a free country, let your hatred get the best of you and rule your emotions and actions as at the RNC.
No one can make you hate anything. If they choose to do so, it's their problem.
There are lots of things people do I dislike, but I don't get all hatred like and go bomb a clinic or kill them or lay down in the street, etc.
So...using your logic....maybe we should look into why Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma, or why Abortion Clinics are the targets of such hatred.
When someone hates, the only person they have to blame is themselves.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, if you have a minute, would you distinguish which pictures seem to demonstrate "hatred?" Because I'm not actually sure how to distinguish "hatred" from "contempt" or "loathing," and you have displayed both of the latter in your short time here.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)