View Full Version : Freedom of speech? Haw...
Lenophis
08-17-2004, 08:28 AM
This looks pretty old (at least a year I believe) but freedom of speech (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&type=printable) for everyone! <img src=smilies/erm.gif> After reading this, I'm GLAD the city of Duluth is gonna bill Bush for his recent visit. ($11,095 or something like that for the overtime and extra security) Actually, I was happy about the billing part, now I'm thrilled! <img src=smilies/upeyes.gif>
"Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists" <-- OMG IM A TERURIST! <img src=smilies/laff.gif>
Ok, the list of reasons to not vote for Bush is just gonna get bigger and bigger.
Article 2 (http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/Faith_Based_Initiatives.htm)!
""Faith-based programs are only effective because they do practice faith." <-- Ya think?
" Proclaiming that "faith-based charities work daily miracles," Bush apparently thinks that religious conversion is the answer to crime, drug addiction, homelessness, teen pregnancy, and other social problems - as long as religious groups are given enough federal dollars." Tell that to his two underage daughters, or Danoz for that matter. <img src=smilies/headshake.gif>
"But few expect the prohibitions to be enforced, particularly in light of Bush's incessant claims about the power of faith to change lives." <-- Actually, true. I have faith that Bush will lose this election, therefore ending the 4 years of suffering. My life has been changed for the better! <img src=smilies/magbiggrin.gif>
"Any public funding of religious organizations is, therefore, government support of religion." <-- <img src=smilies/werd.gif> What did the constitution say again?
Danoz, I wish to directly ask you a question, why are you voting for Bush again?
<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>
Danoz
08-17-2004, 03:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
Danoz, I wish to directly ask you a question, why are you voting for Bush again?
<hr></blockquote>
Because you believe everything you read without question, do you have any idea how bias that article is? How uninformed you make yourself? The real issue is that both parties made this decision for a few reasons. There have been hired hecklers who actually disrupt both Democratic and Republican speeches, just to make it difficult for anything to actually happen. Do you think extremist protesters were able to storm the Democratic convention? Absolutely not. They were pushed into a protest zone for a damn good reason. It has nothing to do with speaking out against your government and protesting when you wish, but I certainly don’t want idiots with signs lining the exit where our president, or when potential president John Kerry will be making his exit or entrance. They’re really there for the coverage anyway, and the news stations—yes, even you’re readily hated FOXNews covers the number of protests very fairly. So what are people really being denied? The right to disrupt whatever the hell they want with signs and screaming? Believe me, Republican and Democrats alike know the protesters are there, and there will ALWAYS be protesters against any person in, or running for high office. It's a protest zone, if you want to scream and protest, go to the zone... the cameras will be there soon-- whatever it is you're protesting. Consiter it for the same reason we seperate thousands of fans in a football stadium. Oh, and the article did lie about something else, too. The non-protesters are just as screened as the protesters. This is a Homeland Security requirement for saftey now.
<P ID="signature">http://www.spazticplastic.com/bannerbaby.gif (http://www.spazticplastic.com)</P>
Gokuh
08-17-2004, 05:52 PM
I have seen the article orginally in one of these places (I dont rememeber which): www.tompaine.com I believe it was tompaine.com referencing a major american newspaper. I would have to check. Then again, I could of seen it in thenation.com
Correction. I seen a SIMILAR article in the nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=hightower
<P ID="signature">ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ</P><P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Gokuh on 08/17/04 01:45 PM.</FONT></P>
Slicer S. V.
08-17-2004, 06:23 PM
> "Attempts to suppress protesters become more disturbing in light of the Homeland Security Department's
> recommendation that local police departments view critics of the war on terrorism as potential terrorists"
> <-- OMG IM A TERURIST!
i doubt that the recomendation is for ALL critics to be seen as potentials, most likely only the most extreme ones... and can you blame them?
> Ok, the list of reasons to not vote for Bush is just gonna get bigger and bigger.
my list for reasons not to vote at all keeps on growing, but i think i am going to end up voting for Bush... at least the guy tries to do what he thinks what is right, even if its wrong... Kerry is just clearly in the pocket of whatever group he thinks will win him the election...
and, even if Kerry were to have been an even slightly honest man, there is one reason i will NEVER support him: isolationism -- Kerry is a self-professed isolationist, and i just plain think that's foolish, and i am not going to vote for a dishonest, foolish, isolationist scum.
> Danoz, I wish to directly ask you a question, why are you voting for Bush again?
Danoz gave his answer, and i've given mine... can't say that i agree with Danoz's take on these things, i honestly do not, i feel that Bush is just as foolish with his war policy as Kerry is with his economic isolation plans... but at least Bush doesn't disallow the media from proclaiming his take on things.
<P ID="signature"></P>
Lenophis
08-18-2004, 04:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
There have been hired hecklers who actually disrupt both Democratic and Republican speeches, just to make it difficult for anything to actually happen. Do you think extremist protesters were able to storm the Democratic convention? Absolutely not. They were pushed into a protest zone for a damn good reason.
<hr></blockquote>
That's a good point, one I admit I overlooked and didn't even think about. Now excuse me while I re-introduce my head to the wall... <img src=smilies/banghead.gif>
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
It's a protest zone, if you want to scream and protest, go to the zone... the cameras will be there soon-- whatever it is you're protesting. Consiter it for the same reason we seperate thousands of fans in a football stadium.
<hr></blockquote>
Denise Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri commented, "No one could see them from the street. In addition, the media were not allowed to talk to them. The police would not allow any media inside the protest area and wouldn't allow any of the protesters out of the protest zone to talk to the media."
That's the only thing that has me worried. I really hope the article is wrong about this point.
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
Oh, and the article did lie about something else, too. The non-protesters are just as screened as the protesters. This is a Homeland Security requirement for saftey now.
<hr></blockquote>
I would hope so, that'd be too big of a security hole otherwise. <img src=smilies/werd.gif>
<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>
Lenophis
08-18-2004, 04:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr>
my list for reasons not to vote at all keeps on growing, but i think i am going to end up voting for Bush... at least the guy tries to do what he thinks what is right, even if its wrong... Kerry is just clearly in the pocket of whatever group he thinks will win him the election...
<hr></blockquote>
So true, so true, again. I still have no reason to vote for Kerry, but plenty of reasons to not vote for Bush.
Vote may be wasted by not voting for Kerry, but I will vote. This whole god damn political system needs serious overhaul....NOW. <img src=smilies/werd.gif>
<P ID="signature"><img src=http://www.cpinternet.com/~norwin/lenophis/sig.png>
"For lovers of irony; I'll just say one thing...wishes do come true." - Lobster Cowboy. Jade (http://disch.zophar.net)</P>
Richter X
08-18-2004, 04:39 AM
I'm gonna vote for Michael Badnarik.
<P ID="signature"><center>http://tinypic.com/2ipoj</center>
<center>Richter EX Version 2.0 Activated</center></P>
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.