 Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 559
Adjunct
|
Adjunct
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 559 |
God Hates Fags. . .
. . .This is the group that is protesting at the fallen American soldiers. They are not protesting the war. They are using the forum of the funeral of American Soldiers to try and get their views across. There is a lot of scrutiny on the war and what better place to try and get your message across than that of funerals. They propose that dead soldiers are the verdict of Gods wrath against America. They claim that God hates America because of its gay and lesbian policy and until America changes its views or policies they will continue to congregate at Soldiers' funerals.
They are not protesting the war, its almost the exact opposite. They would rather see Soldiers die because in their eyes its a direct act of a fag hating god.
It has to do a little more than just freedom of speech. A lot of places ban the KKK and the Aryan Nation for the same reason. Its the spread of hate.
This was happening in the late sixties and early seventies when the SDS were protesting the war. They protested at Soldiers funerals as well. The returning soldiers were called "Baby Killers" and "Death Dealers".
Fryguy
Man, you must be fast because you were haulin' A$$ when I passed you back there. . .
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 116 |
My very liberal bleeding heart friend would be going crazy over this. Hey swears the only way to fight this is more free speech not less, which in theory is great. However, that doesn't comfort family of the serviceman or woman that is being burried. About time Bush did something right.
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 881 Likes: 1
3/4 Throttle
|
|
3/4 Throttle
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 881 Likes: 1 |
Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly applies to everyone, not just those you agree with. It is appauling to see so many people willing to give up these rights simply to censor contradicting or opposing views.
Cheers,
Brad
To be old and wise, you must first be young and stupid.
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 255
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 255 |
I think the mourners at these funerals should have the freedom to express their beliefs by beating these morons with large sticks
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
For everything, turn, turn, turn... There is a season, turn, turn, turn, And a time for every purpose under heaven. AND THE FRIGGIN' TIME TO MAKE WHATEVER YOUR FRIGGIN' POLITICAL POINT IS....IS NOT DURING A FRIGGIN' FUNERAL! (Oh, I almost forgot........turn, turn, turn) ___________ And Bill(and Brad too), Re: "The Slippery Slope", and the "inherent dangers" that you say ensue with such a course: Well, let me just say that I gots me a whole new spin on an old expression I'd like ta share wit' cha.... "Absolute FREEDOM, corrupts absolutely...TOO". And I think that's because....most people are IDIOTS, and thus can't handle the truth...er..I mean, absolute freedom!('cept YOU GUYS of course)  Your misanthorpic friend, Dwight
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 881 Likes: 1
3/4 Throttle
|
|
3/4 Throttle
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 881 Likes: 1 |
AND THE FRIGGIN' TIME TO MAKE WHATEVER YOUR FRIGGIN' POLITICAL POINT IS....IS NOT DURING A FRIGGIN' FUNERAL!It seems that even 'appropriate' times and places are now off limits as well  Cheers, Brad
To be old and wise, you must first be young and stupid.
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,527
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,527 |
The secret service does this type of detail for every president. It is standard operationg procedure. Trust me even Klinton was protected by the secret service. clearing zones of movement is SOP. When Cheney visited Tucson recently streets were blocked off to traffic so that his motorcade could pass without incident or delay. this tactic makes the job of security much easier.
In this day and age with the percentage of hardcore whack jobs that will hide under the guise of "protest" in order to get close.....nothing wrong with a clear path.
The only ones whining about this are the liberal media. They are professional "WHINERS"
If it were john scary or al bore you would not hear a peep.
Last edited by clanrickarde; 05/30/2006 3:12 PM.
"Proud to be an Infidel" ... "100% pure American Jingoist"
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Oh...well I KNEW that idiot stiffles free speech during his little "fundraising events" when he's out on his little "fact finding missions".  So what's your point?  This has been goin' on for YEARS, and especially since (once again) THAT IDIOT has parked his butt in the Oval Office. But one HAS to make allowances for (once again) THAT IDIOT, 'cuz ya know...He's ALWAYS lacked the ability to respond with intelligence when his policies and principles are called into question, face to face. Those Secret Service Agents are just doin' their freakin' JOB, buddy. And THAT'S to try and make the current President NOT BE a TOTAL embarrassment to us Americans.  Cheers, Dwight (and seeing as how there was yet another White House "shakeup" today...I'd say those S/S Agents are doin' a pretty lousy job of THAT assignment...and I'd fire the bunch of them TOO!!!)
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877 |
I personally don't think anyone should disrupt ANY funeral, regardless of how that person died. It's very disrespectful to the family.
Benny
Black & Silver '02
Too many mods to list
Not enough miles ridden
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
Quote:
The secret service does this type of detail for every president.
Come on now, drop the liberal media crap. You know darned well that normally the SS doesn't cleanse the audiences of dissenting voices, as has become the norm lately. Requiring anybody that has an anti-Bush sign to relocate to a site a mile or 2 away from the parade route and blocking access of the media to those areas is NOT the norm! What, is President Bush afraid to talk to or see someone with an opposing viewpoint? And, if it were Kerry or Gore, well, guess what, it wasn't and to my knowledge they have never had the Secret Service remove peaceful protestors. If someone behaving in an agitating manner, then fine, but removing people just because they hold signs that are anti-administration, that's just pure BS and you know it! Or labeling them as potentially terrorist activities as the FBI apparently is now doing, well, thought we were past that stuff when McCarthy was uncovered as the fruitcake that he was! Sorry to see that the party that seemingly is SO pro-constitutional continues to try to trample on or modify it to suit a narrow group within their party!
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877 |
FINALLY someone else who hates seeing "liberal" tossed in front of all these supposedly evil groups of people... I hate labels.
Benny
Black & Silver '02
Too many mods to list
Not enough miles ridden
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Bottom line Benny...I agree with you.
"They" can ban picketing in front of family planning clinics.
"They" can ban advertisements for cigarettes on TV.
"They" can ban THIS!
And I for one, DON'T have a problem with it.
NOW....if only "they" would ban these insultingly STUPID, IRRESPONSIBLE, INNUENDO-RIDDEN, and out and out DECEITFUL Political Campaign "ADVERSITIZING" on television before elections.....I'd die a HAPPY AMERICAN!
And just THINK of all the money (85% of ALL campaign funds go to this practice of PAID SPEECH...NOT FREE SPEECH) a BAN on THIS CRAP would save. NOT to MENTION the corrupting factor that the "Mother's Milk Of Politics" creates!!!
Cheers,
Dwight
(now...I better stop...I'm gettin' a little "heated")
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877 |
All this goes to show you how futile political arguments are  I just hate seeing labels tossed around so carelessly, and then used to imply that certain people are bad. My dad's a staunch democrat, always has been. Was the first to get elected to the VT house back in the 70's from our district, but I've seen "liberal" put in front of MANY things that he would hate to be associated with!!!
Benny
Black & Silver '02
Too many mods to list
Not enough miles ridden
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,606 Likes: 2
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,606 Likes: 2 |
They DID it here in Boston for DNC so THAT sword cuts BOTH ways!!! SORRY Can't buy that it's a PARTY exclusive thing!!! LIVED thru it WITNESSED it it AINT just THE GOP its BOTH sides
THE VOICE OF REASON
per: Stewart
AF&AM/Shriner/Scoutmaster
130/45 TBS 2shim SS Uni 18/42
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877 |
That's true, and a LOT of things run on boths sides.... We all need to remember that sometimes.
Benny
Black & Silver '02
Too many mods to list
Not enough miles ridden
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
I hate pretty much all labels, because quite frankly, they are generally applied in a demonizing way to try to make someone elses viewpoint seem somehow less credible. And I'll even admit to having done it before, but on the flip side I also TRY to argue the points of the discussion and base the discussion on the facts and not the stereotypes or derogatory labels.
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,954 |
I'll take you're word for it Rob. Having never been to a convention (or near one) and having a general disgust and disdain for BOTH parties, I have no desire to go near one! I think the urge to slam heads together in hopes of knocking loose some small crumb of common sense would be overpowering and land me in a lovely 3x5 "apartment" with metal-bar walls and 3 squares a day....
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,606 Likes: 2
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,606 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
I have no desire to go near one!
Yeah I had no desire to go near one either and did everything in my power to avoid going within 20 miles of Beantown during the whole circus...unfortunatly my job dragged me right into the heart of downtown Boston and right past the "protest pens"
THE VOICE OF REASON
per: Stewart
AF&AM/Shriner/Scoutmaster
130/45 TBS 2shim SS Uni 18/42
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 591
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 591 |
Again, here is the web site for the PGR this gives us the ability to at least help, if not make a positive change. PATRIOT GAURD RIDERS
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 17
Complete Newb
|
|
Complete Newb
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 17 |
There is little difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to freedom of expression. Leave it up to Republicans and we are going to run with Bibles and Jesus icons up our arses. Democrats, on the other hand, will turn this country into a politically correct concentration camp. So what is your choice?
By the way, I can think of a few ways why somebody would try to protest during a military funeral.
-vitaliy
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821 |
Quote:
There is little difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to freedom of expression. Leave it up to Republicans and we are going to run with Bibles and Jesus icons up our arses. Democrats, on the other hand, will turn this country into a politically correct concentration camp. So what is your choice?
By the way, I can think of a few ways why somebody would try to protest during a military funeral.
True enough about the Right and the left, it just seems to be different freedoms that they want to restrict or eliminate.
I see this latest move (emotionally appealing as it is) as the PCness that was usually associated with the left wing, that is, "people have a right not to be offended". I guess it's really just a matter of whose poster child is running the show. Naturally the party sycophants support their boy no matter what.
Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 382
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 382 |
The patriot guard are invited guests to the funerals, in writing, by the families! If your reading this, thank a teacher, if your reading this in english, thank a vet!
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,527
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,527 |
Quote...
I guess it's really just a matter of whose poster child is running the show. Naturally the party sycophants support their boy no matter what.
No....Bill. (sigh) it has nothing whatsoever to do with being a sycophant. It does have everything to do in this instance with COMMON HUMAN DECENCY where applied to a funeral and a basic right to grieve while observing the ritual of burial without interference from a sub specie of homo erectus or whatever down level gene pool from which those Kansas pukes hail.
I think it is necessary to understand that this act was promulgated by those cretins and if not for them there would have been no need for it at all.
"Proud to be an Infidel" ... "100% pure American Jingoist"
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Quote:
Bottom line Benny...I agree with you.
"They" can ban picketing in front of family planning clinics.
"They" can ban advertisements for cigarettes on TV.
"They" can ban THIS!
And I for one, DON'T have a problem with it.
NOW....if only "they" would ban these insultingly STUPID, IRRESPONSIBLE, INNUENDO-RIDDEN, and out and out DECEITFUL Political Campaign "ADVERSITIZING" on television before elections.....I'd die a HAPPY AMERICAN!
And just THINK of all the money (85% of ALL campaign funds go to this practice of PAID SPEECH...NOT FREE SPEECH) a BAN on THIS CRAP would save. NOT to MENTION the corrupting factor that the "Mother's Milk Of Politics" creates!!!
Cheers,
Dwight
(now...I better stop...I'm gettin' a little "heated")
That's right, we'd be much better off if we left the discussion of issues and political argument to CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek and the like. Who do these politicians think they are spending money to make their arguments directly to the people when they should be letting the unbiased, balanced and politically neutral members of the press be the final arbiters of what is true and right. We need to keep interest groups and individuals out of the process and let our media betters tell us what to think. The fewer voices the better.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,606 Likes: 2
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,606 Likes: 2 |
These clowns protesting at funerals pi$$ me off SOO much that I just Joined the PGR...Hope I NEVER have to ride for them...but will, if at all possible, when asked to!
Now the Ride Captain just might need to tape my hands to the bars so I can't get off the bike and brain one of them...
If only some one could get a video tape of their "fearless" leader doing a dog (a gay dog)!
THE VOICE OF REASON
per: Stewart
AF&AM/Shriner/Scoutmaster
130/45 TBS 2shim SS Uni 18/42
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Ah HA! It appears (not to quote Admiral Yamamoto, or anything) the sleeping giant of midwestern politics has awoken here.
Okay Larry! "Bidness" as usual, huh?! Let...as you say... these "Special Interests", whoever they may be, continue to plug away with their deceitful "commercials" that do absolutely NOTHING to enlighten ANY debate, huh?
Haven't you realized by now that these very BIASED and EXPENSIVE "commercials" have contributed to the very cynicism and apathy that permeates the American consciousness today.
And even though you may think, and I doubt I'm wrong in my assessment here, that the major networks are biased towards the "Left"(ha ha...wrong), and that the "real" news is only being supplied by Fox News(HA HA...WRONG), I'd rather receive my information about candidates and issues from THEM(yep...even FOX) than from some political HACK(read: campaign manager) who's being paid to smear his employer's opponent with a continual barrage of OUTRIGHT lies and half-truths.
I'm not talking here about taking away people's rights, I'm talking about taking BACK what is in the PUBLIC'S interest.(which BTW are who the "Airwaves" belong to...if you know your FCC regulations, that is)
But alas, I KNOW something such as my suggestion would be doomed to failure because IF I could ever get enough APATHETIC Americans to even sign such a petitions, here's EXACTLY what the Status Quo would run on TV...........
Their "commercial" opens with the picture of a Iraqi terrorist who has a knife to the throat of an american hostage.
And THEN, some out-of-work voice-over actor would intone...."If you vote for the "Dwight Law" you are just giving the terrorist what they want".
And you know WHAT Larry. Their crap WOULD work TOO. Always HAS(just ask those afforementioned "HACKS"), because I KNOW the American Public doesn't seem to have the time OR the inclination to do their OWN investigation and/or READ about the REAL FIGGIN' ISSUES that affect them. And so FEAR works to move 'em to blindly act and vote.(well...the 50% who DO get off their lazy collective a$$es, that is)
Cheers,
Dwight
(and people wonder why I'M so freakin' cynical)
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 706
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 706 |
Quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, do the mourners attending funerals have the right to assemble peaceably, or to exercise their right to religious ritual in the burial of their dead, or are they excluded from these basic constitutional rights? If we acknowlege those rights, and then those rights are abridged, do the mourners have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances? If the absense of law forsakes those rights, is it the obligation of the government to then pass laws protecting those rights?
Is there really any difference in the government sending in forces to disrupt these funerals, or to knowingly turn a blind eye while vigilantes like the Phelps's do the disrupting? The government is not allowed to prevent religious expression, peaceful assembly, or free speech, but is it obligated to guarantee those rights from aggressive disruption by others?
If the mourners are forced to take the law into their own hands in order to exercise their rights to peaceful assemble and to express their religious beliefs through the ritual of a funeral, doesn't this represent a breakdown in our laws and our society? Laws do not always benefit everyone, but they usually benefit the majority. Aren't disputes like this what laws are for?
We all agree that there are limits to the degree that you can exercise free expression. Loud parties late at night in your own home will draw complaints from the neighbors and visits from the police. Would it make a difference if the hosts of the party had an agenda motivated by religious or political beliefs? Most of us agree with these restrictive statutes because we believe we are entitled to a peaceful existence and a good night's sleep. There are literally hundreds or even thousands of other examples. We should ask whether these same conventions should apply to the parties involved in these funerals.
Regards,
Cody
I was born a long ways from where I was supposed to be. - Bob Dylan
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 255
Adjunct
|
|
Adjunct
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 255 |
Come on Dwight,dont sugarcoat it, how do you really feel????
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,606 Likes: 2
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,606 Likes: 2 |
And What if my "religion" called fot the rape of minors (as an offering to my god) or to the sacrafice of a virgin (no comments about finding one) to my god....am I not practicing the "free excersise thereof"...I bet my house the cops would be knocking on my door...and my new best friend would be named BUBA
THE VOICE OF REASON
per: Stewart
AF&AM/Shriner/Scoutmaster
130/45 TBS 2shim SS Uni 18/42
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2
Fe Butt
|
|
Fe Butt
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,096 Likes: 2 |
Quote:
Come on Dwight,dont sugarcoat it, how do you really feel????
Well gimpy! "FEEL"?!! "FEEL"?!
"KNOW" is the word you're lookin' for, my man!!!
You should know by now that even WHEN I "sugarcoat it"(with lame jokes), my prose is decidedly POINTED!
Which has garnered me SOOO MANY FRIENDS around here.
Cheers,
Dwight
(and why any election run I would ever pursue, would ALSO be doomed to failure.....nobody likes hearin' the "unvarished truth"...SEE ABOVE)
Yep! Just like a good Single Malt Scotch, you might call me "an acquired taste" TOO.(among the many OTHER things you may care to call me, of course)
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877 |
Peaceably is the key word there, and subject to enterpretation.
Benny
Black & Silver '02
Too many mods to list
Not enough miles ridden
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,126 Likes: 13
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,126 Likes: 13 |
Quote:
I respect the idea behind it, but I don't respect any attack on freedom of speech or assembly. I disagree strongly with the asshats that cause the problems, but as soon as you start restricting one groups freedom to express their opinions, everyone is fair game for whatever political prostitute happens to be in power.
Don't you people know anything about history and human nature?
Since when did civilians have any rights on a military base? For that matter, any rights at all regarding the military? The military is not a democracy nor is it a republic. Free speech is fine, but only in our civilian democracy.
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Free speech does not just belong to those who own presses and transmitters. It belongs to all of us. Most of the press is grossly biased and 95% of it to the left. Fox, the Wall Street Journal, and talk radio tend to be more to the right, so what? They still don’t own the first amendment. I’d rather have politicians and pressure groups free to lie, distort and smear each other than to stifle free speech. The McCain/Feingold so called “campaign finance reform†was the grossest violation of free speech I’ve heard of in this country. To have it upheld by the Supreme Court was a travesty. The first amendment was adopted to guarantee political speech and debate, not to protect flag burners and pornographers. In today’s world money equals speech. You and I can rant on the internet all we want, we can stand on a soapbox and harangue passers-by, but to deny us access to the big soapbox of the airwaves is restricting us to tiny and inconsequential audiences. If I am forbidden from raising money from like minded people and supporting or attacking candidates and ideas then my free speech is severely curtailed. Democracy is served by letting Moveon.org, Focus on the Family, Planned Parenthood, the NRA and Handgun Control fight it out in public, Not by silencing them and denying political speech to all but the self appointed members of the press.
As for the lack of civility you seem to decry, what is currently done is extremely mild by historic standards. Check out what was said about Jefferson, Jackson and Lincoln. We just whine about it more.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,527
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,527 |
Well noted larry. The bulk of the mainstream media is indeed extremely biased to the more extreme left. There can be no doubt about that. Thats why a lot of the good news that ocurs is always painted negatively by CNN, NBC, CBS (C BS), ABC and MSNBC.
An example of this is clearly noted during the 2004 elections. Literally if one chose to watch the communist news network CNN or any of the aforementioned media outlets you would have thought that GDB could not possibly be reelected.
It must have been a major shock to those who really do only view the left leaning media. I have to watch both since my significant other suffers from liberal disease.
You are so right about Lincoln. That poor man had a lot more grief to put up with than G Dubya will ever have to take.
Lincoln was often depressed and its not hard to see why based on all the crap he took from his political enemies.
"Proud to be an Infidel" ... "100% pure American Jingoist"
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877 |
All news is biased by the simple fact that there is no possible way they could physically report all the news that happens, therefore they have to choose which stories to report, therefore someone pics, therefore it is biased. Left or right, doesn't matter, it's still someone choosing.
Benny
Black & Silver '02
Too many mods to list
Not enough miles ridden
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,527
Loquacious
|
|
Loquacious
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,527 |
Yea but it sure is funny how the majority of the networks are biased and essentially go the route of hard core anti-American propaganda.
If someone only watches or has access to the three big networks they are essentially not getting the whole story.
They are not getting the RIGHT story anyway.
Case in point. during 2004 when those fine Naval Swift boat boys took up the righteous sword againast kerry the big three painted or at least tried to paint them all as liars. FOX at least gave them a fair shake and indeed recognized the truths they brought forth.
We should be thankful we have FOX and the major news talk radio guys like Rush and Sean Hannity. If not for them there would be no truth in our media today.
"Proud to be an Infidel" ... "100% pure American Jingoist"
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877 |
Come watch the news in NY sometime... Much different here.
Benny
Black & Silver '02
Too many mods to list
Not enough miles ridden
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877
Should be Riding
|
|
Should be Riding
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,877 |
Basically what I mean is there's a big difference between "not true" and "not the whole story". Just because it is against what you want or think doesn't mean it's not true. It may be that they conveniently left out the counterpoint, but it could be perfectly true.
Benny
Black & Silver '02
Too many mods to list
Not enough miles ridden
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7
Monkey Butt
|
|
Monkey Butt
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,630 Likes: 7 |
Those dead soldiers and Marines are the ones who paid the price for our freedoms and they should be honored far beyond our meager ability to do so. That said, the low life scum from that so called church in Kansas are within their rights to think and believe whatever idiocy they choose. They are also within their rights, paid for by those honored dead, to stand on a street corner and promulgate that idiocy.
But, since those fools are acting in a most indecent and uncivil manner I think they relieve us from any obligation to treat them decently and civilly. Thus we, as decent people and patriotic citizens, are similarly within our rights to block them from sight, drown out their chants with exhaust roars and, if suitably provoked by fighting words, to respond in an appropriate manner.
Although I agree with the motives and intent of those who voted for and signed the "Respect for Fallen Heroes Act" I must disagree with the act itself. I don’t want the government restricting speech because it is abhorrent. I think the Patriot Guard is a proper response. Further, I think private “persuasion†is also appropriate if the protests become too intrusive. But outlawing an activity that is certainly within the realm of political speech should not be done by the Federal government.
We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.
|
|
|
Re: Bush bans protests
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821
Bar Shake
|
|
Bar Shake
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,821 |
Quote:
Those dead soldiers and Marines are the ones who paid the price for our freedoms and they should be honored far beyond our meager ability to do so. That said, the low life scum from that so called church in Kansas are within their rights to think and believe whatever idiocy they choose. They are also within their rights, paid for by those honored dead, to stand on a street corner and promulgate that idiocy.
But, since those fools are acting in a most indecent and uncivil manner I think they relieve us from any obligation to treat them decently and civilly. Thus we, as decent people and patriotic citizens, are similarly within our rights to block them from sight, drown out their chants with exhaust roars and, if suitably provoked by fighting words, to respond in an appropriate manner.
Although I agree with the motives and intent of those who voted for and signed the "Respect for Fallen Heroes Act" I must disagree with the act itself. I don’t want the government restricting speech because it is abhorrent. I think the Patriot Guard is a proper response. Further, I think private “persuasion†is also appropriate if the protests become too intrusive. But outlawing an activity that is certainly within the realm of political speech should not be done by the Federal government.
OH MY!!! Did Larry and I just agree on something? 
Contra todo mal, mezcal; contra todo bien, también
|
|
|
|
|
