Yeeeaaah. A 61 year-old librarian ticketed and escorted away by police for TRESPASSING, at an open public forum, on city property, because some Republicans objected to a sign she carried. Some Republicans working for John McCain. Who, as the kindly gray-haired lady points out, are for some strange reason upset over a sign equating McCain with Bush? Isn't that a good thing? Isn't he running for Bush Term Three?
Get used to this kind of fascist thug behavior if McCain wins. McCain's an easily angered bully - according to his work friends (AKA, other Senators!), so imagine how he'll react to protesters as President!
Can you say "Work Camp"? How about "Temporary Detention Center"? Or maybe just "Gulag"?
Monday, July 7, 2008
A Look Into the Future - America Under McCain
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
DNC protests will be behind fence
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092
I was thinking baby blue riot helmets.
It worked in Chicago '68.
I hope the ACLU can get this overturned. It's just as wrong as the story I posted! Though at least the Dems are allowing their conventioneers to see that there are protests. How far away were they at the NYC convention for the Republicans? A mile?
I can actually understand a barrier, but what's wrong with good old fashioned sawhorses or their plastic equivalent? Just to keep the demonstrations civil and keep people from overreacting, I think it's okay to draw a legal line and ask people to respect it. That's all any of our laws are - legal lines defining behavior. But legal and Constitutional it has to be - not herding them off like cattle and denying them free speech 'cuz a guy in a suit don't wanna hear 'em! I hate suits and ties and the men inside them. (Sorry, Nazz - you gotta wear a tie, doncha?)
Something's seriously wrong in this country that we've become afraid of words.
Bless you gomonkeygo, your last sentence says it all.
This country was founded by dissenters, does anyone remember that?
I guess I like to dissent too much sometimes. I should probably lock myself up, for my own good, before I hurt somebody.
"This country was founded by dissenters, does anyone remember that?"
White male Christian slave-owners....you guys keep forgetting how awful you think this country is
And as far as free speech goes, it is still better here than in Canada or the glorious Europe that you so adore.....One can go to jail for what you say there.....look it up
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAEDB.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/free_speech_in_canada.html
And as far as the wearers of ties....the saintly Dr. King did most of his speaking and marching while wearing a tie.
Think before you type
What bothers me is the "still better here" part of your reply, Gunboy, because it implies - given the context of our conversation - that even though little old librarians may face jail for expressing themselves peaceably in a public forum, it's okay. It's okay because it's worse elsewhere.
That ain't okay by me. I don't buy that argument (and I don't recall ever slobbering about my love for Canada or Europe or any other country on this blog). We've become a very quiet, very frightened nation since September 11, 2001. And we're not just afraid of terrorists. We're afraid of ourselves and of appearing to be non-patriotic by expressing a contrary opinion in public. The government has implicitly and explicitly encouraged this - even calling the largest teacher's union "terrorists" at one point because they disagreed with the Bush administration.
As example, expressing myself publicly to the extent that I do on this blog has been very hard for me. I was fearful of recrimination. Because the anonymity of my username is meaningless. The government can find out my identity without effort or warrant - apparently - these days. Now, our pathetic Congress, including Obama, has voted to give Bush and cronies complete and total immunity for their warrantless spying on the American public. It actually does make me think fondly of Canada, O! Canada!
"Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism" - Howard Zinn (a great American patriot)
PS I should correct my earlier remark. I should have said "white men in suits and ties," not just men in suits and ties.
LBJ was wearing a tie when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Bill Clinton wore a tie for most of his great works......
Think before you express your peculiar bigotry
No one is going to haul you away because you dissent. That only happens in Europe, China and Africa. And Asia too
We are anything but quiet following 9/11 The airwaves and internet are filled with criticism of the US and its government. No one is going to come look for you to lock you up. You sound paranoid
As soon as someone goes to jail for expressing themselves peacefully, I will apologize profusely. s to the imaginary "warrantless spying" ...These wiretaps have to be approved by the FISA court.
The courts have ruled that phone records- not the conversations themselves- are not confidential and therefore do not have the same status as actual conversations
Post some more music please.
Media coverage of an anti- John McCain protest in Denver on Monday raised important free speech issues - but failed to provide a full picture of the speech suppression problem.
Former Denver Post reporter Carol Kreck received a ticket from the Denver police when she carried a large sign in the Galleria walkway outside the building at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts, where John McCain was inside taking questions from a town hall meeting.
The Post's Web site on Tuesday featured a video of the incident filmed by ProgressNowAction, an organization created to promote pro-Democrat, anti-Republican activism. The source of the film was not identified until near the end of the film, and it would have been better had the Web site noted the source immediately.
MSNBC television featured a slightly different version of the same video on a segment in its nightly opinion program Countdown with Keith Olbermann, in a segment hosted by Rachel Maddow. MSNBC, like the ProgressNow Web page touting the Kreck case, created the false impression that the elderly librarian was acting on her own. They neglected to mention that Kreck was participating in a group demonstration organized by ProgressNow, and was carrying a sign which she had been given by the organization. (This latter fact was brought out in a sympathetically pro-Kreck column by Bill Johnson of the Rocky.)
On Wednesday, the Post provided perspective from legal experts. Precedent from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has specifically held that, even though the DCPA Galleria was partly built with tax dollars, it is not a public forum where speech cannot be limited.
The Post also quoted Kreck's attorney David Lane, who pointed to a Colorado Supreme Court precedent saying that private shopping malls were, despite being privately owned, required to allow some free speech activities on their property. For the benefit of readers who are not First Amendment experts, the Post should have explained that the 10th Circuit decision about the Galleria involved the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, whereas Lane is arguing for a more pro-speech rule pursuant to the Colorado Constitution's free speech provision.
Kreck is identified by the media as a 60- (or, sometimes 61-) year-old part-time librarian, and sometimes the articles say that she is a librarian for an education think tank. It would be interesting to know which one.
Most media coverage has very closely followed the framing created by ProgressNow's edited video, focusing exclusively on Kreck. A more complete picture was provided by the Colorado Independent Web site, which on Monday reported that Kreck was one of several ProgressNow protesters who were told to desist. Among them was a man dressed as a peapod, who was making the point that McCain and Bush are two peas in a pod.
Thus far untouched by the Colorado media is any report on the Obama campaign's policy regarding the bringing of anti-Obama signs into places where Obama is speaking. Although ProgressNow has no obligation to put things in perspective, the mainstream media do. While MSNBC's host and guest expert from the left-wing Huffington Post Web site mused about the McCain/Bush hostility to protests, a more serious journalistic approach would note that the Obama campaign is also guilty of suppressing protests.
For example, according to the venerable left-wing magazine The Progressive (Dec. 12, 2007), police acting at the behest of the Obama campaign expelled three peaceful anti-nuclear waste protesters from the area outside a University of South Carolina stadium where Obama was scheduled to speak.
Post columnist Susan Greene made a start at examining the Obama side of Colorado speech control. On Thursday, she wrote that "Kreck's citation came the same day Englewood's police chief convinced the City Council to pass an anti-picketing ordinance meant to control protesters in August. A note written by the city's attorney's office inexplicably says the language of the measure was 'recommended by the DNC' " (Democratic National Committee.)
The Colorado media should follow up by asking the Obama campaign (or its proxy, the DNC) whether they intend to allow anti-Obama signs inside or outside Invesco Field when Obama gives his acceptance speech in August.
Instead of just accepting the "librarian" frame of ProgressNow, the Colorado and national media should have - after four days of covering the same story - gone further in examining the anti-free speech inclinations of both major-party presidential candidates. Although Keith Olbermann would never tell you, the evidence suggests that when it comes to squashing protesters, McCain and Obama are two peas in a pod.
What part of sense of humor do you have a problem with, Gunboy? I really do appreciate your comments, I'm glad you take the time and put the effort in to it even though obviously we completely disagree with one another. But what's going wrong here when you can't laugh, man? I'm just going to assume it's me and that my sense of humor doesn't translate to print or whatever it is we're using here, okay?
Ahhh... you've been joking all along...I get it. Ha Ha you don't really hate white men in suits, like so many on your side......and you don't think that we are all going to be locked up in Gulags......and you don't think that America has become quiet and frightened since 9/11
Funny
Thanks for explaining, it's all clear now.
So when one says something indefensible, one can just say, "just kidding!"
That's what I'm hoping/assuming Bush will say some day:
"Just kidding! There were never any WMDs and we knew it all along! Ha - pretty funny, right? C'mon, Iraqis, stop playing dead now - you can get up from your shallow graves now. C'mon, guys, get up - it was all a joke, right? Right?"
And then we can start the war crimes tribunal.
Guess who said the following.....
...The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.... The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Bill Clinton12/16/98
And this....
"Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?
Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.
And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."
Bill Clinton 2/17/98
Will he go on trial?He seemed to believe that there were WMD"s
Or should he say "just kidding!"?
Good luck with your brain, I am signing off on this argument,since there are probably all of three people reading this exchange.....
Post some music, it's something you understand
And Clinton told Bush that his number one priority in terms of security should be stopping Osama bin Laden. Which suggestion Bush ignored completely - because it came from Bill Clinton.
Playing the "Blame Bill" game is easy. I despise the man and can blame him for all kinds of crap. (Look - we found a point of common interest!)
We can do this forever, man! But we don't have to. So, let's stop. But not because it's silly, but because I think we should be able to discuss this more rationally, as Americans.
One of my best friends is a Republican who voted for Bush at least once I think and I assume he will vote McCain. (He knows how I feel about Big John!) He supports the war in general at least and I disagree with him completely, but we talk rationally and pretty calmly about this stuff; we can argue without vitriol and rancor. We respect that the other person is a complete idiot about politics though so seemingly smart in all other aspects. (He'll probably read this, actually!) It's possible. We both still love this country even though we radically disagree about what is best for it. I think you and I both love this country and also radically disagree about what's best for it. That's America!!!
I'm sure you'll be back if only for the music and that's great. There will be more, though I'm having some uploading issues right now that are slowing things down.
Post a Comment