[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yes, I think you are.

Boy that was clever Lerk. I am not the one desperate to prove my horrid "3 prong approach" Lerk.

People are grasping for anything they can find and turning it into some big conspiracy.

This is not something NEW that just started with the Bush administration.

And even if it WAS, It's clear WHY it's being done.

Times have changed, this world isn't the world it was at one time.

Blame the nutjob terrorists.

(I added) let's think logically for a second:

As if I wasn't thinking logically.

Silly.

If you were wanting to "get" Bush, would you hide among the protestors or among the supporters? Who is more likely to have closer access? I submit the security risk is exactly the same for those who attend the event and aren't protestors and those who are protestors. And, if you're a secret service agent, you do your commander in chief a disservice not to think so.

How do you know what security his "supporters" goes through?

Sorry Lerk, it is also more likely that his "supporters" or the people who claim to be wont be doing this. ANd no one would be able to "Hide" as a supporter.

Going back to my earlier point: if they can comfortably address security concerns for everyone else who attends, via metal detectors, etc....they can do so for protestors. They just choose not to, and they choose to use the flimsy veil of safety to abridge the right to peaceably assemble.

Well that is your opinion. You don't do this as a profession. I would trust the SS's knowledge before I would yours.

Nothing personal.

[thunderous_funker]

Since when is it the SS's job to keep protestors away from TV cameras?

This has nothing to do with security. The president's safety can be easily achieved without the need to put protestors so far away from events that it can't even be technically considered a protest.

The president's physical safety is not determined by his popularity or the political views of the crowd.

"I guess you boys can take the day off. Everyone loves me in Crawford!"

The SS's job is exactly the same whether the crowd is carrying signs that express love or hate for the man they are entrusted to protect.

"Its ok, harry. Let him through. He's a got a Bush button on him..."

There is only one reason to move protestors so far away that they aren't even at the event and one reason only--to make sure the cameras only capture pictures of Bush surrounded by happy people, not angry people with signs.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Boy that was clever Lerk. I am not the one desperate to prove my horrid "3 prong approach" Lerk.

People are grasping for anything they can find and turning it into some big conspiracy.

This is not something NEW that just started with the Bush administration.

And even if it WAS, It's clear WHY it's being done.

Times have changed, this world isn't the world it was at one time.

Blame the nutjob terrorists.

[/b]
As if I wasn't thinking logically.

Silly.
[/b] How do you know what security his "supporters" goes through?

Sorry Lerk, it is also more likely that his "supporters" or the people who claim to be wont be doing this. ANd no one would be able to "Hide" as a supporter.



Well that is your opinion. You don't do this as a profession. I would trust the SS's knowledge before I would yours.

Nothing personal. [/B]

I attended a Clinton rally in my town when he was president. anyone who attended was required to walk through a metal detector, but it was open to anyone. There were sharpshooters on building tops, etc. It was a very secure event AND it had people protesting and heckling in the crowd.

Your assertion that someone who appears to be a supporter would not attack the president just shows how naive you are. And yes, you ARE incapable of thinking of this logically if you cannot understant why an assailant would pose as a supporter rather than a protestor.

Don't worry, you don't offend me by saying a secret service agent knows better than I, but you do offend me if you think YOU know better than I.

LOL!

As T_f points out, the ONLY (and I do mean ONLY) reason for this is to prevent the appearance of dissent from being viewed by video cameras....if there were legitimate security concerns they could be easily addressed.
Do you not recall how when Bush was elected, one of the very first things he did was a speech in his own texas legislature. The speech was on his bipartisan support base, but the most vocal in opposition to him were disinvited...was that a security question? Did they really think one of the liberal legislators was going to assault him, or was the real reason that they wanted the appearance of unanimous support for the tv camera?

security my frickin @ss...this is all about infringement of rights. And if any of you support that, you deserve to lose any and all civil rights that will be taken from you in the future.

[Lerkfish]

I would make the further observation of how much I hate the disingenuous nature of the conservatives on these types of issues:

-- we invade Iraq because we view them as a security threat and want to reshape the region into a more western-palatable structure, as well as make a profit off their oil...but the conservatives lie and cloak it as:
� humanitarian liberation.

-- Bush prevents citizens from the right to peacefully protest and the conservative lie to make it:
� a security issue.

how do you guys sleep at night? or do you just lie that easily, lacking a conscience?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I would make the further observation of how much I hate the disingenuous nature of the conservatives on these types of issues:

-- we invade Iraq because we view them as a security threat and want to reshape the region into a more western-palatable structure, as well as make a profit off their oil...but the conservatives lie and cloak it as:
� humanitarian liberation.

-- Bush prevents citizens from the right to peacefully protest and the conservative lie to make it:
� a security issue.

how do you guys sleep at night? or do you just lie that easily, lacking a conscience?

I don't recall the protesters not being allowed to protest. Furthermore, the 'humanitarian liberation' is just a component of the complex Iraq mission.

Your falsified, agenda-inspired portrayals might rouse up your radical cohorts, but the majority of Americans see right through them.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I attended a Clinton rally in my town when he was president. anyone who attended was required to walk through a metal detector, but it was open to anyone. There were sharpshooters on building tops, etc. It was a very secure event AND it had people protesting and heckling in the crowd.

Right, which was PRE-911

Your assertion that someone who appears to be a supporter would not attack the president just shows how naive you are.

I never said that. I said I believe they are probably scanning such things more than they used to. That it will be harder for that to happen.

And yes, you ARE incapable of thinking of this logically if you cannot understant why an assailant would pose as a supporter rather than a protestor.

Again I never said that either. I said it was unlikely.

Don't worry, you don't offend me by saying a secret service agent knows better than I, but you do offend me if you think YOU know better than I.

How pretentious.

As T_f points out, the ONLY (and I do mean ONLY) reason for this is to prevent the appearance of dissent from being viewed by video cameras....if there were legitimate security concerns they could be easily addressed.

In your un schooled about security opinion.

Do you not recall how when Bush was elected, one of the very first things he did was a speech in his own texas legislature. The speech was on his bipartisan support base, but the most vocal in opposition to him were disinvited...was that a security question? Did they really think one of the liberal legislators was going to assault him, or was the real reason that they wanted the appearance of unanimous support for the tv camera?

security my frickin @ss...this is all about infringement of rights. And if any of you support that, you deserve to lose any and all civil rights that will be taken from you in the future.

You have every right to have your opinion. It certainly isn't one based on fact.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I don't recall the protesters not being allowed to protest. Furthermore, the 'humanitarian liberation' is just a component of the complex Iraq mission.

Your falsified, agenda-inspired portrayals might rouse up your radical cohorts, but the majority of Americans see right through them.

3 prong man 3 prong!

[BlackGriffen]

Have any of those supportive of the Pres brought up a compelling reason for moving the protesters out of eye and earshot? As I said before, I could understand an increased buffer zone just in case the crowd gets rowdy - even as much as 200 feet sounds pretty reasonable. What is the reason for moving the protesters as far away as they do?

The issue isn't binary. There's a huge question of degree here that those supportive of Bush have completely failed to address. Please do so now, or forever hold your peace.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Have any of those supportive of the Pres brought up a compelling reason for moving the protesters out of eye and earshot? As I said before, I could understand an increased buffer zone just in case the crowd gets rowdy - even as much as 200 feet sounds pretty reasonable. What is the reason for moving the protesters as far away as they do?

The issue isn't binary. There's a huge question of degree here that those supportive of Bush have completely failed to address. Please do so now, or forever hold your peace.

BlackGriffen

indeed. I've addressed BOTH the security and the rights angle from my opinion. the pro Bush side simply dismisses out of hand the rights issue and refuses to address it, even though it obviously is more to point than the security.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Please do so now, or forever hold your peace.

I'll cite all the reasons that every other president and public official has used, whatever those were.

This isn't new, or is it news. This is just the ACLU looking for mention in headlines, and headlines looking to mention the ACLU. SSDD.

[BlackGriffen]

You're still completely dodging the issue of degree, finboy.

BlackGriffen

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
This has nothing to do with security. The president's safety can be easily achieved without the need to put protestors so far away from events that it can't even be technically considered a protest.

The SS's job is exactly the same whether the crowd is carrying signs that express love or hate for the man they are entrusted to protect.

There is only one reason to move protestors so far away that they aren't even at the event and one reason only--to make sure the cameras only capture pictures of Bush surrounded by happy people, not angry people with signs.

Right on t_f!

I hae lived in Washington, DC for 11 years and have attended numerous political events in and around the city, even at my place of work. When the President is the star attraction, the Secret Service locks down the venue at least 24 hours ahead of time and no one is allowed in until a pre-set time at which everyone has to go through metal detectors. There is no reason why the protestors---for or against the President--couldn't be run through metal detectors just like everyone else.

I know of one example where Clinton turned down an opportunity to speak at the Smithsonian--where I work--because there were picketers around protesting a union issue (unrelated to the President's visit). Hell, the members of the White House advance team came right out and said they don't want the motorcade to pull up with picketers out front in full view of the TV cameras. So, yes, this action by Bush is completely political and done for the TV cameras.

ALL politicos always want to be seen as having the public enamored of them. This is nothing knew. The protestors are being moved away to provide the President the appearance of a unified, favorable audience and NO other reason. Please stop insulting our intelligence by claiming otherwise.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by finboy:
I'll cite all the reasons that every other president and public official has used, whatever those were.

This isn't new, or is it news. This is just the ACLU looking for mention in headlines, and headlines looking to mention the ACLU. SSDD.

Exactly. But you are ignoring the anti Bushites plight of INJUSTICE!

[dcmacdaddy]

DP

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Right, which was PRE-911

So? How does the fact that there was a terrorist attack several years ago due to a security failure completely unrelated to the Secret Service and president increase the risk to the president when he's giving a speech in a situation that's being closely monitored and controlled by the secret service?

I never said that. I said I believe they are probably scanning such things more than they used to. That it will be harder for that to happen.

So you think that they're screening the apparent Bush-supporters more effectively than the apparently Bush-protesters so that it would be easier for someone with the intent to kill/harm the president to get in by acting like a protester instead of a supporter? What you've said only makes sense if you think that a potential assassin is going to look like a protester instead of a supporter.

Again I never said that either. I said it was unlikely.

It's seems more likely than the alternative. If I wanted to kill the president (and I don't, and have no intention of attempting to do so, nor do I think that anyone should or encourage anyone to do so) I would want to get as close to him as possible. That means pretending to be a supporter. It is more likely that a potential assassin with be with the apparent supporters than the apparent protesters.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
So? How does the fact that there was a terrorist attack several years ago due to a security failure completely unrelated to the Secret Service and president increase the risk to the president when he's giving a speech in a situation that's being closely monitored and controlled by the secret service?

Because terrorist awareness is now a bit sharper. People are being a bit more careful.

So you think that they're screening the apparent Bush-supporters more effectively than the apparently Bush-protesters so that it would be easier for someone with the intent to kill/harm the president to get in by acting like a protester instead of a supporter? What you've said only makes sense if you think that a potential assassin is going to look like a protester instead of a supporter.

I believe they are screening the people that will be closest to Bush more carefully yes. That only makes sense.

It's seems more likely than the alternative. If I wanted to kill the president (and I don't, and have no intention of attempting to do so, nor do I think that anyone should or encourage anyone to do so) I would want to get as close to him as possible. That means pretending to be a supporter. It is more likely that a potential assassin with be with the apparent supporters than the apparent protesters.

Well that is your opinion. We can guess as to what WE would do, or what WE THINK would happen, but that doesn't take away from the fact that this indeed is about security.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Because terrorist awareness is now a bit sharper. People are being a bit more careful.

[/b] I believe they are screening the people that will be closest to Bush more carefully yes. That only makes sense.


Well that is your opinion. We can guess as to what WE would do, or what WE THINK would happen, but that doesn't take away from the fact that this indeed is about security. [/B]

They could, uh, I dunno, maybe screen everyone carefully? It does not make sense to screen those that will be closest (in the crowd) to Bush more carefully. It makes sense to take the time and resources to screen every single person in the crowd with equal intensity. What if someone dresses as a protester and so isn't screened as carefully, but then removes their anti-Bush buttons or whatever and switches of to the pro-Bush crowd? Your interpretation seems to assume that you can outthink the potential assassins. My interpretation is based on the idea that there are more potential assassins than people trying to stop them, and that the potential assassins are at least as smart as me (some, most, or maybe all are probably smarter).

If the security of the president is as important as you seem to think it is (I, personally, think his life should be held in no more regard than anyone else's.), then every single person should get the full-level screen, even if it's inconvenient. To provide good security, you have to take into account that you might be wrong about everything.

[spacefreak]

If I rent out a ballroom in a hotel (maybe the Hyatt Regency in Houston) to give a presentation to some business associates, do protesters have the right to gather around my diligently prepared area, chanting and screaming, offending guests and coworkers, and rendering my business conference useless?

Doesn't someone have the right to not be pressed against the wall by a pack of protesters? Doesn't someone have the right to be able to give a speech uninterrupted and unthreatened?

None of these offended folks were prevented from protesting. They were prevented from forming an unruly mob in the vicinity of the President.

Guess what - there is no way in hell the Secret Service is going to allow a pack of 300 screaming radicals on the front steps of the White House. They can go to the Lincoln Memorial if they'd like, but not near the White House.

We'll see how the courts decide.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If I rent out a ballroom in a hotel (maybe the Hyatt Regency in Houston) to give a presentation to some business associates, do protesters have the right to gather around my diligently prepared area, chanting and screaming, offending guests and coworkers, and rendering my business conference useless?

Doesn't someone have the right to not be pressed against the wall by a pack of protesters? Doesn't someone have the right to be able to give a speech uninterrupted and unthreatened?

None of these offended folks were prevented from protesting. They were prevented from forming an unruly mob in the vicinity of the President.

Guess what - there is no way in hell the Secret Service is going to allow a pack of 300 screaming radicals on the front steps of the White House. They can go to the Lincoln Memorial if they'd like, but not near the White House.

We'll see how the courts decide.

This isn't an all or nothing proposition. Are you really that thick? Even keeping the protesters 20 feet back from the entrance of the building would be sufficient to prevent what you describe. That's not what's happening. The protesters are made to go down the street, and around the corner, to the point where they can be neither seen nor heard. That is an abridgment of their rights, period.

BlackGriffen

[nonhuman]

Also, the hotel management has the right to kick the protesters out of the hotel, and the renter of the ballroom probably has the same rights as to the ballroom.

The government, however, does not have the right if their motivation is solely the speech of the protesters.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
This isn't an all or nothing proposition. Are you really that thick? Even keeping the protesters 20 feet back from the entrance of the building would be sufficient to prevent what you describe. That's not what's happening. The protesters are made to go down the street, and around the corner, to the point where they can be neither seen nor heard. That is an abridgment of their rights, period.

The protesters do not have the right to assault individuals. 300 protestors screaming at and calling the President "liar...murderer" within 20 feet of his face is not acceptable. I don't care who the President is.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Also, the hotel management has the right to kick the protesters out of the hotel, and the renter of the ballroom probably has the same rights as to the ballroom.

The government, however, does not have the right if their motivation is solely the speech of the protesters.

But these were almost all private events on private property. Dinners, luncheons, fundraisers. Someone rented these ballrooms. Someone rented these Civic Centers. Someone rented these arenas.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
But these were almost all private events on private property. Dinners, luncheons, fundraisers. Someone rented these ballrooms. Someone rented these Civic Centers. Someone rented these arenas.

Then the protesters have the right to protest right outside the front door if they want (so long as they don't obstruct the ability of people to go in and out), or inside so long as the proprietors of the establishment don't tell them to leave and the private individual who rented the space doesn't object.. But the secret service is not suddenly absolved of their responsibility to respect the rights of US citizens because they happen to be on private property.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The protesters do not have the right to assault individuals. 300 protestors screaming at and calling the President "liar...murderer" within 20 feet of his face is not acceptable. I don't care who the President is.

Why are conservatives always so touchy feely? Toughen up, pansy, and take it like a man. Last time verbal attacks were considered assault was... when?

Let me be more clear: I meant 20 feet from the entrance to the event, or 20 feet from the supporters. Basically, clearly physically separated, but not, "Out of sight out of mind." I would even accept 50 or 100 feet, hardly right in anyone's face.

Frankly, I have the right to criticize the President, and to do so to his face whenever he has the balls to show it in public. Bush could try to go after anyone calling him a murderer for slander, but he wouldn't get very far (same as Clinton wouldn't have gotten far with suing that one woman for slander).

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Again, no one knows the reasons for it. We are all guessing.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
If I wanted to kill the president (and I don't, and have no intention of attempting to do so, nor do I think that anyone should or encourage anyone to do so)...

Can I just say that it provides me with endless mirth that you have to watch what you say in the "land of the free."

Should we ask why the "leader of the free world" needs so much "security"? Shouldn't we be throwing rose petals in his path?

[BlackGriffen]

God, Zimmy, you sound like this was a religious debate.

Taking it to court will force them to either: expose their motive, or fess up and cut the crap. Either way, I see taking it to court as a beneficial step, don't you?

BG

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
God, Zimmy, you sound like this was a religious debate.

When did I mention religion?


We DON'T know why it's being done.

We can guess. But to already find them guilty and make claims certain people are is a bit too soon.

I think they call that a knee-jerk.

Commonly happens when one is trying to "prove" something.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
When did I mention religion?

Please note carefully the part where BG said "sounds like." That indicates a simile, which is a rhetorical device for comparing two different things, e.g. your arguing tactics here and your tactics in religious debates.

Phew. Glad we got that settled.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
We DON'T know why it's being done.

We can guess. But to already find them guilty and make claims certain people are is a bit too soon.

So you're saying you're open to the possibility that the situation is exactly as the ACLU is alleging it to be, that the Secret Service is deliberately limiting the free speech rights of administration protestors? It sounds to me as if you dismissed the possibility entirely. Glad I was mistaken!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Please note carefully the part where BG said "sounds like." That indicates a simile, which is a rhetorical device for comparing two different things, e.g. your arguing tactics here and your tactics in religious debates.

No tactics. If no one here knows the real reason, no one knows.

So you're saying you're open to the possibility that the situation is exactly as the ACLU is alleging it to be, that the Secret Service is deliberately limiting the free speech rights of administration protestors? It sounds to me as if you dismissed the possibility entirely. Glad I was mistaken!

Nope. I said it didn't seem like that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The protesters do not have the right to assault individuals. 300 protestors screaming at and calling the President "liar...murderer" within 20 feet of his face is not acceptable. I don't care who the President is.

what you're suggesting is prior restraint.

your assumption is that the protestors, who have a permit, are going to turn into an unruly angry mob. (which if so, would happen no matter whether they are in camera range or not)

How is it then that the KKK are allowed to hold outdoor public rallies? Isn't because they avail themselves of the right to peaceably assemble? Aren't they assumed to be peacefully assembled until proven otherwise?

Are you honestly saying that the KKK can have those rights but Bush protestors cannot? Are you saying that white supremecists are better citizens than anti-Bush protestors?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
300 protestors screaming at and calling the President "liar...murderer" within 20 feet of his face is not acceptable. I don't care who the President is.

Absolutely it is - more so as they are correct on at least one (if not both) count(s).

[nvaughan3]

The point is, the liberties protected are available to everyone....

Like getting preferential treatment based solely upon the color of your skin? What a liberty!

As we clearly see from this thread, myopic conservatives will allow or cheer the removal of civil liberties when they are in power....not clearly reasoning they limit their own as well.

"clearly" see, huh? Well in my view cordoning off disruptive protesters is appropriate no matter who the president. As I said before there have always been court accepted limits to protests starting with the fact that you need a permit.

It is not usual for liberals to attempt to infringe the civil liberties of others....therefore (if true, though you provide no numbers) it would be logical that more ACLU cases would be filed to protect liberals from conservatives than vice versa.

Ah, I see. What an excuse. Everyone is out to get you, that's the new line for you guys now, eh?

I would make the further observation of how much I hate the ...conservatives...

That's about the only thing liberals can take a stand on, unfortunately.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
None of these offended folks were prevented from protesting. They were prevented from forming an unruly mob in the vicinity of the President.

You know what: I think the most effective solution, and I provide this free of charge, is to specify certain compounds as designated "protest areas", where people can protest without restrictions. You could put fences around these compounds to make sure they're undisturbed by conservatives. May put up a nice iron-wrought gate or something, with a motivating motto, like "Protest macht frei" or so.

You know, do it up all cosy-like.


-s*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
quote:
I would make the further observation of how much I hate the ...conservatives...

That's about the only thing liberals can take a stand on, unfortunately.

well, my actual quote was:

I would make the further observation of how much I hate the disingenuous nature of the conservatives on these types of issues:

why the need to selectively edit my quote and change its meaning?
If you're going to do that, identify it as such.

of course, the irony here is that you whinge about "everybody out to get you" and then follow up by distorting what I say to get me.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

who says right wingers have no sense of humor?

Further, I find the following statement:

Like getting preferential treatment based solely upon the color of your skin? What a liberty!

more telling of you than you realize.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The protesters do not have the right to assault individuals. 300 protestors screaming at and calling the President "liar...murderer" within 20 feet of his face is not acceptable. I don't care who the President is.

That's funny. I always thought that in the home of the free, people had the right to say whatever they want, wherever and whenever they want.

[nvaughan3]

If you're going to do that, identify it as such.

I did you tool. You somehow missed the multiple ...'s.

[nvaughan3]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That's funny. I always thought that in the home of the free, people had the right to say whatever they want, wherever and whenever they want.

Sorry, not true.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
That's funny. I always thought that in the home of the free, people had the right to say whatever they want, wherever and whenever they want.

You thought wrong.

[Wiskedjak]

So, what exactly is the point of "Freedom of Speech", then?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, what exactly is the point of "Freedom of Speech", then?

its only for conservatives.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
I did you tool. You somehow missed the multiple ...'s.

sorry, to re-edit a quote to intentionally change its meaning is the not purpose of an ellipses. The purpose of an ellipses is to move on to another complete thought contained in the original, NOT to maliciously fabricate meanings that weren't there.

what you did was unethical.

not really suprised, though, are we?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Can I just say that it provides me with endless mirth that you have to watch what you say in the "land of the free."

I'd also find it funny, if I weren't the one having to be careful.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
I...tool...somehow missed...

Hey, you're right!

Hmm. This works really well.

Thanks for the lesson in quoting!



-s*

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, what exactly is the point of "Freedom of Speech", then?

This has been discussed in numerous threads, but the gist is...you can't go into a bank and say "I have a bomb, so please give me all your money". You cannot go up to a person and say "I am going to kill you", and you can't lie in a courtroom or other legal proceeding.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
This has been discussed in numerous threads, but the gist is...you can't go into a bank and say "I have a bomb, so please give me all your money". You cannot go up to a person and say "I am going to kill you", and you can't lie in a courtroom or other legal proceeding.

Yes, yes, yes. That covers what you can and can't say. But, what is they point of "Freedom of Speech"? Why do you have the freedom of speech? (I already know, I just want to hear you say it)

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
This has been discussed in numerous threads, but the gist is...you can't go into a bank and say "I have a bomb, so please give me all your money". You cannot go up to a person and say "I am going to kill you", and you can't lie in a courtroom or other legal proceeding.

You can (or should be able to) say anything you want so long as it doesn't result in people getting hurt. The first example, much like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, is likely to cause a panic that results in people being hurt. The second example, you can say. I hear people say it all the time, or say that they're going to kill someone. It only becomes a problem when there is other evidence that you might actually do something. You can't lie in legal proceedings because it could result in people being hurt or killed.

Protesting, however, does not pose a danger. People saying that they don't like Bush, even if they use really inflamatory language, isn't going to get people hurt.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Protesting, however, does not pose a danger. People saying that they don't like Bush, even if they use really inflamatory language, isn't going to get people hurt.

That depends on whether you consider America waking up to be a danger.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Protesting, however, does not pose a danger.

There are many examples of protests turning violent. Maybe that doesn't fall under your definition of danger.

People saying that they don't like Bush, even if they use really inflamatory language, isn't going to get people hurt.

The Secret Service is obviouly unwilling to take that chance, and probably always has been.

What presidents have ever been in close proximity (within 100 yards) of hundreds of protesters? I can't remember where such a scenario was permitted.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
There are many examples of protests turning violent. Maybe that doesn't fall under your definition of danger.


The Secret Service is obviouly unwilling to take that chance, and probably always has been.

What presidents have ever been in close proximity (within 100 yards) of hundreds of protesters? I can't remember where such a scenario was permitted.

There are many examples of protests not turning violent.

I find it hard to believe that no president has ever given a speech with protesters present.

The people have a right to be heard. And the president has an obligation to listen.