[itai195]

I can't resist posting this article, from The Oregonian. Three women were kicked out of a Bush/Cheney rally last Saturday, and threatened with arrest, for wearing t-shirts that read 'Protect Our Civil Liberties.' What's so offensive about that?

Janet Voorhies said she was curious to see how Republicans would react when she and two other women showed up at President Bush's Central Point rally wearing T-shirts stating "Protect Our Civil Liberties."

She got her answer before the president even spoke. The three women were ejected from the rally and escorted from the Jackson County Fairgrounds by state police officers who warned them they would be arrested if they tried to return.

Republican officials said they weren't exactly sure why a volunteer at the event demanded that the three women leave the rally. But a Bush campaign spokesman, Tracey Schmitt, said: "It is not the position of the campaign that wearing a T-shirt that says protect civil liberties is enough to conclude someone is disruptive."

Thursday night's action was the latest in a series of incidents in which people have been removed from Bush campaign events for expressing opposition to the president. Officials say the events are open to supporters and people who are considering voting for Bush, but they are quick to act when they think there is a possibility of disruption.

Voorhies, 48, a student teacher who lives in Ashland, said she and two other teachers obtained tickets to the event after saying they were undecided voters. She said she does not expect to vote for Bush, however.

She said the three decided to wear T-shirts that weren't critical of the president but expressed an issue "important to us. . . . We were testing the limits of the Republican Party, of who is allowed to be at a rally for the president."

Voorhies said the three made it through all three checkpoints and assured volunteers who questioned them that they would not disrupt the event. But when Voorhies was on her way to the bathroom, she was stopped by a volunteer who told her she wasn't welcome.

She said this volunteer pointed to her shirt and said it was "obscene."

Jackson County Republican Chairman Bryan Platt said he didn't see the incident but said the volunteer was trying to make a judgment about whether the women would be disruptive.

"It basically just triggered his alarm," Platt said of the volunteer, whom he did not name, "and we'll stand behind that. I wish (the women) would have just dressed in a way that was without that kind of intent to incite any kind of incident."

Lisa Sohn, a spokeswoman for Democrat John Kerry, said their rallies have been open to anyone and charged that the Bush administration has the attitude "that if you don't agree with them, it is not okay."

[chris v]

They hate our freedoms.



Who, you ask? Good question.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by chris v:
They hate our freedoms.



Who, you ask? Good question.

the irony is not lost on me: their shirts said "protect our civil liberties" and they were threatened with arrest.

[RAILhead]

Libbies are missing they key sentence: Republican officials said they weren't exactly sure why a volunteer at the event demanded that the three women leave the rally. But a Bush campaign spokesman, Tracey Schmitt, said: "It is not the position of the campaign that wearing a T-shirt that says protect civil liberties is enough to conclude someone is disruptive."


Maury

[itai195]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Libbies are missing they key sentence: Republican officials said they weren't exactly sure why a volunteer at the event demanded that the three women leave the rally. But a Bush campaign spokesman, Tracey Schmitt, said: "It is not the position of the campaign that wearing a T-shirt that says protect civil liberties is enough to conclude someone is disruptive."

Maury

Actions speak louder than words, IMO. If they felt it wasn't right to kick someone out for wearing the t-shirt, why didn't they issue an apology for threatening these women with arrest? Instead, they ultimately backed the decision:

"It basically just triggered his alarm," Platt said of the volunteer, whom he did not name, "and we'll stand behind that. I wish (the women) would have just dressed in a way that was without that kind of intent to incite any kind of incident."

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by itai195:
Actions speak louder than words, IMO. If they felt it wasn't right to kick someone out for wearing the t-shirt, why didn't they issue an apology for threatening these women with arrest? Instead, they ultimately backed the decision:

Spare me. The Republican Party is supposed to apologize for the actions of some people at a campaign pit-stop? Have the Dems come out and apologized for the trashing of Repub HQs all over the country, the crack-the-vote scene, the voter fraud already taking place?

No, they haven't. is anyone asking them to? Not that I know of.

Maury

[warmspit]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Spare me. The Republican Party is supposed to apologize for the actions of some people at a campaign pit-stop? Have the Dems come out and apologized for the trashing of Repub HQs all over the country, the crack-the-vote scene, the voter fraud already taking place?

No, they haven't. is anyone asking them to? Not that I know of.

Maury

projection. The republican tactic of choice. The truth is, republicans are comitting registration fraud, vote tampering, poll closings, intimidations of minorities, etc. on an unprecedented proportion.

Bush cannot win this election fairly, therefore he must do so fraudulently. Again.

[itai195]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Spare me. The Republican Party is supposed to apologize for the actions of some people at a campaign pit-stop? Have the Dems come out and apologized for the trashing of Repub HQs all over the country, the crack-the-vote scene, the voter fraud already taking place?

No, they haven't. is anyone asking them to? Not that I know of.

Maury

Oh, I see. Nobody is asking them to apologize, but you don't hesitate to mention those allegations whenever it suits you. You can't see the parallel between your reaction to this story and Democrats' reactions to your allegations?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by warmspit:
projection. The republican tactic of choice. The truth is, republicans are comitting registration fraud, vote tampering, poll closings, intimidations of minorities, etc. on an unprecedented proportion.

Bush cannot win this election fairly, therefore he must do so fraudulently. Again.

Links?

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by itai195:
Oh, I see. Nobody is asking them to apologize, but you don't hesitate to mention those allegations whenever it suits you. You can't see the parallel between your reaction to this story and Democrats' reactions to your allegations?

My point was embarassingly clear: a few idiot Dems are doing idiot things and they're getting called on the carpet -- and I'm not asking for the DNC to issue an Official Apology�. That would be stupid.

A few idiot Repubs are doing idiot things and they're getting called on the carpet -- and people asking for the RNC to issue an Official Apology�? That's stupid.

Simple.

Maury

[warmspit]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Links?

Maury

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,3532412.story

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story....5&nav=168XRvNe

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....2a2c6f98.html

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/19886.php

http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.or...004/09/384.php

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate...ontentID=76329

http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.or...004/09/384.php

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2...es/02local.htm

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bellatrys

http://www.chadkirkpatrick.com/pr_sproul.htm

http://www.alternet.org/story/20190

http://www.populist.com/


um...just a quick google search.

do YOU have any links showing dems involved in voter fraud, as you originally alleged? You can't count the crack story, sorry. Got anything else?

[itai195]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Simple.

Maury

I think you missed my point.

[chris v]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Spare me. The Republican Party is supposed to apologize for the actions of some people at a campaign pit-stop? Have the Dems come out and apologized for the trashing of Repub HQs all over the country, the crack-the-vote scene, the voter fraud already taking place?

No, they haven't. is anyone asking them to? Not that I know of.

Maury

Nice going.

[mitchell_pgh]

I want Kerry to send me a formal apology.

Someone stole my Bush/Cheney sign!!!!!

[chris v]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I want Kerry to send me a formal apology.

Someone stole my Bush/Cheney sign!!!!!

The war of the yard signs is just an indicator of how divided and angry people are on both sides. I've had a Kerry sign yanked out of my yard, too. Like that's gonna help anybody win an election.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by chris v:
The war of the yard signs is just an indicator of how divided and angry people are on both sides. I've had a Kerry sign yanked out of my yard, too. Like that's gonna help anybody win an election.

how can this be? Bush is a divider, not a uniter..er...or is it the other way round?

[greenamp]

Originally posted by warmspit:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,3532412.story

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story....5&nav=168XRvNe

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....2a2c6f98.html

http://arizona.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/19886.php

http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.or...004/09/384.php

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate...ontentID=76329

http://lasvegas.staughton.indypgh.or...004/09/384.php

http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2...es/02local.htm

http://www.livejournal.com/users/bellatrys

http://www.chadkirkpatrick.com/pr_sproul.htm

http://www.alternet.org/story/20190

http://www.populist.com/


um...just a quick google search.

do YOU have any links showing dems involved in voter fraud, as you originally alleged? You can't count the crack story, sorry. Got anything else?

So you post links to 3 sites requiring registration to read, double post 1 link in 2 different places, 1 broken link, and the rest from OP ED type sources and expect to be taken seriously?


Somebody bench this guy, he's off to a bad start

[warmspit]

Originally posted by greenamp:
So you post links to 3 sites requiring registration to read, double post 1 link in 2 different places, 1 broken link, and the rest from OP ED type sources and expect to be taken seriously?


Somebody bench this guy, he's off to a bad start

do your own google search, then.

requesting links and then attacking the links: another repug favorite tactic. Nice to see repugs are the same here as anywhere: predictable and lame.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
My point was embarassingly clear: a few idiot Dems are doing idiot things and they're getting called on the carpet -- and I'm not asking for the DNC to issue an Official Apology�. That would be stupid.

Were any of the victims of those "idiot things" threatened with arrest for doing something they had every right to do?

[PacHead]

Those 3 silly, disruptive females were not undecided as they fraudulently claim. One of them even says in the article that she wasn't going to vote for Bush.

Let the 3 troublemaking women attend some other rally with their own kind.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Those 3 silly, disruptive females were not undecided as they fraudulently claim. One of them even says in the article that she wasn't going to vote for Bush.

Let the 3 troublemaking women attend some other rally with their own kind.

their own kind? care to explain that?
that would be people concerned about civil liberties, I think.
What kind are you? If you are not concerned about civil liberties? doesn't that make your "kind" Fascist?

[itai195]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Let the 3 troublemaking women attend some other rally with their own kind.

Yeah! Go Bush! *Uniter not a divider! Uniter not a divider!

* as long as you agree with him

[chris v]

Originally posted by warmspit:
their own kind? care to explain that?

You know. Thoughtcriminals.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by chris v:
You know. Thoughtcriminals.

can't have people out there thinkin. Gotta stop that. Follow Bush's lead: he thinks as little as possible, and only listens to people that agree with him.....and by gum, he got to be prezzident!

[chris v]

Question: What is is about civil liberties that gets Republican's hackles up, anyway? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the protection of law-abiding citizens against unwarranted govt. intrusion was one of the cornerstones of conservatism.

Can someone explain to me the ideological shift where civil liberties has become anathema to the Republican party?

(sorry-- kind of a derail, but it's an honest question)

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by chris v:
Question: What is is about civil liberties that gets Republican's hackles up, anyway? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the protection of law-abiding citizens against unwarranted govt. intrusion was one of the cornerstones of conservatism.

Can someone explain to me the ideological shift where civil liberties has become anathema to the Republican party?

(sorry-- kind of a derail, but it's an honest question)

It's simple. The fish begins to stink at the head. The rest of it follows.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by chris v:
Question: What is is about civil liberties that gets Republican's hackles up, anyway? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the protection of law-abiding citizens against unwarranted govt. intrusion was one of the cornerstones of conservatism.

Can someone explain to me the ideological shift where civil liberties has become anathema to the Republican party?

(sorry-- kind of a derail, but it's an honest question)

My guess is it's because "liberty" sounds like "liberal". Unfortunately, that doesn't explain why Republicans like the word "liberate" so much ...

[greenamp]

Originally posted by chris v:
Question: What is is about civil liberties that gets Republican's hackles up, anyway? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the protection of law-abiding citizens against unwarranted govt. intrusion was one of the cornerstones of conservatism.

Can someone explain to me the ideological shift where civil liberties has become anathema to the Republican party?

(sorry-- kind of a derail, but it's an honest question)

Since when have civil liberties been an issue with republicans or democrats?
Neither one is the party of civil liberty.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Since when have civil liberties been an issue with republicans or democrats?
Neither one is the party of civil liberty.

My guess is sometime around when people could get threatened with arrest for wearing t-shirts that said "Protect our civil liberties"

[warmspit]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
My guess is sometime around when people could get threatened with arrest for wearing t-shirts that said "Protect our civil liberties"

eeeeyaup.
right around there.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
My guess is sometime around when people could get threatened with arrest for wearing t-shirts that said "Protect our civil liberties"

My point is that neither the DNC nor the RNC are known for their fights to protect civil liberties. It's funny to me seeing Dems and Reps bicker of this

Why do you think the country is locked into a two party system?

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
My guess is sometime around when people could get threatened with arrest for wearing t-shirts that said "Protect our civil liberties"

I guess barbed wired "free speech zones" far outside the Dem. convention in Boston is no different, right?

[itai195]

Originally posted by greenamp:
I guess barbed wired "free speech zones" far outside the Dem. convention in Boston is no different, right?

I wouldn't personally make this a partisan issue because I think that argument is based on perceptions and not facts. However, I have to wonder why anyone would get kicked out of a political rally and threatend with arrest just for wearing a t-shirt like these.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by itai195:
I wouldn't personally make this a partisan issue because I think that argument is based on perceptions and not facts. However, I have to wonder why anyone would get kicked out of a political rally and threatend with arrest just for wearing a t-shirt like these.

If it is infact true, what is left for you to wonder? Why would this surprise you?

Code:
<?php 

$Second_Amendment;
$DNC;
$RNC;

while ($DNC)
{
  $Second_Amendment = FALSE;
}

while ($RNC)
{
  $Second_Amendment = FALSE;
}

?>

[warmspit]

Originally posted by greenamp:
I guess barbed wired "free speech zones" far outside the Dem. convention in Boston is no different, right?

do you even know who put those up? thought not.

[fireside]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Those 3 silly, disruptive females were not undecided as they fraudulently claim. One of them even says in the article that she wasn't going to vote for Bush.

actually the article says she "does not expect to vote" meaning, she WAS undecided, went to the rally, and now she does not expect to vote for bush because of the incident. if the article had said "she did not expect to vote.." then you're still wrong, since she said expect, not that she wasn't.

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
My guess is sometime around when people could get threatened with arrest for wearing t-shirts that said "Protect our civil liberties"

Let's see what happens if I and two other people go marching around a Kerry rally wearing T-shirts that say "Kerr Is A Yellow Bellied Back Shooting Coward" on them.

[fireside]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Let's see what happens if I and two other people go marching around a Kerry rally wearing T-shirts that say "Kerr Is A Yellow Bellied Back Shooting Coward" on them.

so you're saying someone wearing a shirt that says "Protect our Civl Liberties" is directly offensive to the president?

[MATTRESS]

Originally posted by fireside:
so you're saying someone wearing a shirt that says "Protect our Civl Liberties" is directly offensive to the president?

I wasn't aware Bush personally ordered these people to leave and threatened them with arrest.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by warmspit:
do you even know who put those up? thought not.

Umm, they were contructed by whomever organized the dem. convention.

Do you know how to debate without acting like a 14yo?

[warmspit]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Let's see what happens if I and two other people go marching around a Kerry rally wearing T-shirts that say "Kerr Is A Yellow Bellied Back Shooting Coward" on them.

I've been to kerry rallies and those people ARE there. They yell and try to disrupt Kerry and they are simply talked to...my favorite response was:

"I am glad you bush supporters came because I want you to know that the democrats believe that in this great country, that everyone has the right to express themselves....and everyone has the right to be wrong!

see, I think unfortunately for you guys, you're only seeing the World As Presented To You�, you assume because your guys require loyalty oaths, and arrest greiving mothers of dead servicemen, that everyone else must be as fascist as you...but actually, that's why Kerry did so well in the debate, he's be fending off rude and obnoxious Bushites for quite a while....he's used to people who don't kiss his @ss everytime he says 8 words in a row.

[itai195]

Originally posted by greenamp:
If it is infact true, what is left for you to wonder? Why would this surprise you?

Because merely wearing a t-shirt is rather inoffensive.

[warmspit]

Originally posted by greenamp:
Umm, they were contructed by whomever organized the dem. convention.

Do you know how to debate without acting like a 14yo?

no, and yes.

no, they were erected by the security forces...run by the republican governor, a republican.

and yes, I know how to debate without acting like a 14 year old. I'm doing it right now. I'm asking you if you knew the correct answer to your own misassumption. Obviously you did not. Besides, I've seen some 14 years olds debate. They'd mop up the floor with guys like you, sorry to say.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by warmspit:
no, and yes.

no, they were erected by the security forces...run by the republican governor, a republican.

and yes, I know how to debate without acting like a 14 year old. I'm doing it right now. I'm asking you if you knew the correct answer to your own misassumption. Obviously you did not. Besides, I've seen some 14 years olds debate. They'd mop up the floor with guys like you, sorry to say.

The "free speech zones" outside the 2004 D. Convention were planned as early as the beginning of this year, BY THE PEOPLE WHO ORGANIZED THE CONVENTION.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/22/thursday/
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12729
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...s_blocks_away/

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MATTRESS:
Let's see what happens if I and two other people go marching around a Kerry rally wearing T-shirts that say "Kerr Is A Yellow Bellied Back Shooting Coward" on them.

Is the phrase "Protect our Civil Liberties" equivalent to saying "Bush Is A Yellow Bellied Back Shooting Coward"?

[warmspit]

Originally posted by greenamp:
The "free speech zones" outside the 2004 D. Convention were planned as early as the beginning of this year, BY THE PEOPLE WHO ORGANIZED THE CONVENTION.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/22/thursday/
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=12729
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...s_blocks_away/

need to read your own links: in the first link, there is a clue:

The attorney went on to say that the police department has plenty of time to change things around and give protestors the access they desire and still preserve security

unless you're claiming the police all work for the DNC, it is as I stated previously.

your second link corroborates that:

A spokeswoman for Boston police said the department is committed to accommodating protesters, but because of the urban setting, there are few open areas near the arena suitable for demonstrations.

"Our first priority is public safety, but people have a right to come and be heard, and we totally understand that, and we're supportive of that," police spokeswoman Mariellen Burns said.

again, its the police, those in charge of security, who are responsible for setting up the zones.

and your last link also states:

Mariellen Burns, a spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, said convention organizers will place protesters within sight and sound of delegates, but that the dense urban setting around the FleetCenter makes that task difficult. There are few large open areas near the building, which is in the middle of a busy business district and transportation hub, she said.

"Our first priority is public safety, but people have a right to come and be heard, and we totally understand that, and we're supportive of that," Burns said.

note that the police department is taking ownership of the security arrangements and explaining the logistics of why the lots were placed as they were.

I think where you're getting sidetracked is the phrase "convention organizers". You're probably unaware that any convention has to negotiate security with the city, and other govt. agencies. The whole group, the conventioneers, and the govt. officials charges with transportation and security, are included in the group of "organizers".

gee, this was fun. let's play "find the link again" sometime so i can kick your @ss again.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by warmspit:
need to read your own links: in the first link, there is a clue:

The attorney went on to say that the police department has plenty of time to change things around and give protestors the access they desire and still preserve security

unless you're claiming the police all work for the DNC, it is as I stated previously.

your second link corroborates that:

A spokeswoman for Boston police said the department is committed to accommodating protesters, but because of the urban setting, there are few open areas near the arena suitable for demonstrations.

"Our first priority is public safety, but people have a right to come and be heard, and we totally understand that, and we're supportive of that," police spokeswoman Mariellen Burns said.

again, its the police, those in charge of security, who are responsible for setting up the zones.

and your last link also states:

Mariellen Burns, a spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, said convention organizers will place protesters within sight and sound of delegates, but that the dense urban setting around the FleetCenter makes that task difficult. There are few large open areas near the building, which is in the middle of a busy business district and transportation hub, she said.

"Our first priority is public safety, but people have a right to come and be heard, and we totally understand that, and we're supportive of that," Burns said.

note that the police department is taking ownership of the security arrangements and explaining the logistics of why the lots were placed as they were.

I think where you're getting sidetracked is the phrase "convention organizers". You're probably unaware that any convention has to negotiate security with the city, and other govt. agencies. The whole group, the conventioneers, and the govt. officials charges with transportation and security, are included in the group of "organizers".

gee, this was fun. let's play "find the link again" sometime so i can kick your @ss again.

If you are actually naive enough to think that the DNC had nothing to do with organizing the free speech zones in an effort to quell protesters, then you are in a sad sad state of mind my rabid friend. If your lovely party of freedom were so concerned with civil freedom, then they could have just as easily scoffed at the anti free speech zones, instead of using their democratic pawn of a mayor to cite "security concerns," as an excuse to limit protest.

Please continue though with your illusions that you're winning something here.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Is the phrase "Protect our Civil Liberties" equivalent to saying "Bush Is A Yellow Bellied Back Shooting Coward"?

Aparrently, yes, if you're a right-wing idealogue. I asked once, and no one really replied, so I'll ask again: What is it about civil rights that the Republican party finds so repugnant?

[greenamp]

Originally posted by chris v:
Aparrently, yes, if you're a right-wing idealogue. I asked once, and no one really replied, so I'll ask again: What is it about civil rights that the Republican party finds so repugnant?

I do not think it's a fair assessment to say that the entire Republican party supports civil rights infringement. I think it much more accurate to say that those sentiments stem from the extreme right who have hijacked the party. In much the same way, the extreme left who have hijacked the Democratic party loathes the civil liberties of those with whom they disagree as well.

In their current states, the two parties are really no different. The "issues" they tout are nothing more than smoke screens aimed at dividing the masses. They both serve the interests of only a select few.

[olePigeon]

I don't get it. Is it illegal for a Democrat to attend a Republican rally, or vice versa? So what if they weren't going to vote. As long as they didn't disrupt the rally, why can't they voice their opinions?

Oh wait, were they gay, black, or illegal migrant worker? In that case, they don't have opinions.