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.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 879 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well, be glad you can use the word Liberal, which is the modern form of the word nigger for conservatives.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not according to what I heard... I will elaborate more, maybe later... I have to force myself to go to work now.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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 ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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??? Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
