Man arrested for carrying "F U G B" sign [Archive]

JeffNights

05-15-2004, 09:23 PM

Platteville Police Lt. Tom Schmid said a business owner along the street had complained about the sign, and officers thought children might see it. Van den Bosch wrote the letters "r e e" and "s" in tiny print, Schmid said.

"We had to take some action," Schmid said. "If we were wrong, then the citation will be voided and taken care of that way. That's the way the system is supposed to work."

No you assclown.....thats definately not how it works...you cant ARREST somebody becasue you think you might be right...

fucking patriot act.

chinaski

05-15-2004, 09:24 PM

Eh, the guy was trying to be a smartass attention whore. Got what he deserved. since when cant you walk around with a sign with the letters F U G W printed on it?

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:26 PM

Eh, the guy was trying to be a smartass attention whore. Got what he deserved.

I am praying that is a poor attempt at sarcasm.

JonInMiddleGA

05-15-2004, 09:28 PM

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/local/8664932.htm

I'm a republican, but I'm voting for Kerry. This kind of garbage is out of control. Ashcroft is the most dangerous man since J. Edgar Hoover. This country is totally farked.
Eh, disorderly conduct sounds about right. The guy was definitely attention whoring & was creating a situation where there could definitely been an ass-whipping involved.

clintl

05-15-2004, 09:30 PM

Then arrest the thugs who attack him, rather than the guy exercising constitutionally protected rights.

VPI97

05-15-2004, 09:31 PM

I am praying that is a poor attempt at sarcasm.Sorry, it wasn't. When someone acts like a jackass in public, I'm happy when they get called on it.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:34 PM

Sorry, it wasn't. When someone acts like a jackass in public, I'm happy when they get called on it.

I pray that one day you are arrested for exercising your constitutionally-protected rights. People like you and Jon are bigger threats to this country than Al-Queda ever was or is.

VPI97

05-15-2004, 09:36 PM

I pray that one day you are arrested for exercising your constitutionally-protected rights. People like you and Jon are bigger threats to this country than Al-Queda ever was or is.:rolleyes:

Desnudo

05-15-2004, 09:36 PM

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/local/8664932.htm

I'm a republican, but I'm voting for Kerry. This kind of garbage is out of control. Ashcroft is the most dangerous man since J. Edgar Hoover. This country is totally farked.

I'm not sure what Ashcroft has to do with the local police citing a man for $240.

Cuckoo

05-15-2004, 09:39 PM

I pray that one day you are arrested for exercising your constitutionally-protected rights. People like you and Jon are bigger threats to this country than Al-Queda ever was or is.

Without commenting on the thread's original content, I'd say that the rollie-eyes doesn't do this comment justice. Just when I think I can't possibly see a more idiotic thing on this board, someone shows me there's no end to ignorance.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:42 PM

I'm not sure what Ashcroft has to do with the local police citing a man for $240.

It's the culture that this administration has created where individual rights are less important than anything tenuously connected to terrorism. Notice how the Bush administration tries to connect people like this guy, the guy in S.C. (Brett Bursey), and the others to "threats against the president" (a.k.a. terrorists) even though that logic is ridiculous.

I'm a libertarian/republican who values my right to be free from arrest for speech that those in power may dislike. This administration does not share that view. They will not be getting my vote again.

MJ4H

05-15-2004, 09:43 PM

People like you and Jon are bigger threats to this country than Al-Queda ever was or is.

just unreal.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:43 PM

:rolleyes:

I hope you get killed before you procreate.

Cuckoo

05-15-2004, 09:45 PM

I just felt sorry for you before sjshaw. Now I really think you should go away.

JeffNights

05-15-2004, 09:45 PM

So hey..whos up for a game of yahoo! pool?

anybody? anybody?

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:45 PM

I just felt sorry for you before sjshaw. Now I really think you should go away.

Funny, I feel the same about you and the rest of the nutjobs like you on this board.

Cuckoo

05-15-2004, 09:46 PM

I hope you get killed before you procreate.

I hope you get banned before you can post again.

Hurst2112

05-15-2004, 09:47 PM

The humane society just called. They heard there was a cat fight here.

Jeeze you guys...why does every political thread turn to something nasty?

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:48 PM

Why? That is no more offensive than your comments to me.

Cuckoo

05-15-2004, 09:50 PM

I called your comparison of VPI and Jon to Al Qaeda an ignorant comment. You wished death upon someone. Can you really not see a difference?

JeffNights

05-15-2004, 09:50 PM

Ummm....So nobody wants to play YahoO! pool with me eh?

Seriously settle down people....I think we can all state our opinion and then not have a flame war open up...

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:51 PM

If you truly think my comment was serious, you are a sad person.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:52 PM

People like the ones in this thread lend more evidence to the fact that I am not at home in the republican party anymore. I wish libertarians had a clue on how to get elected.

VPI97

05-15-2004, 09:55 PM

I hope you get killed before you procreate.What an asshole.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 09:56 PM

It's the culture that this administration has created where individual rights are less important than anything tenuously connected to terrorism. Notice how the Bush administration tries to connect people like this guy, the guy in S.C. (Brett Bursey), and the others to "threats against the president" (a.k.a. terrorists) even though that logic is ridiculous.

I'm a libertarian/republican who values my right to be free from arrest for speech that those in power may dislike. This administration does not share that view. They will not be getting my vote again.
Things like this has been going on for decades/centuries. It gets more attention now because 1) media wants to create perception and 2) we have a public eager for "news" like this.

How can you blame "them" for the culture when the public demands security. Go look at all of those polls the clearly shows that the public favors security over privacy. Go look at all of those Congressional representatives (including yours) that gleefully passed the Patriot Act (which the DoJ is doing job that is mandated by Congress, including laws that has been on the books for many years).

You know I am a vocal libertarian so I am not making excuses. I am just pointing out the double standard: everyone wants nothing to happen but when measures are taken to ensure that nothing happens, the same people become critical.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:56 PM

Looks like I finally get to populate my ignore list.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 09:58 PM

JonInMiddleGA

05-15-2004, 09:58 PM

Jeeze you guys...why does every political thread turn to something nasty?
Now Hurst, I ain't bitchin' at you, and I'm not trying to be an ass to you, so I hope you take this as a general remark & not a personal one, but ... I keep answering this question when I see it, and I really don't understand why it even occasionally surprises anyone when things get nasty in a political thread.

It's because the two sides really don't like each other. Not hardly a little bit. And often, we find that we downright dislike the other side. And sometimes, we sincerely & deeply fucking hate each other.

I don't really believe (R) or (D) have much to do with it, those are just labels that are handy to apply to the vast amount of differences in beliefs & values that drive the two sides, a sort of time-saving shorthand that covers a lot of territory. Sort of like the "Here's Your Sign" song talks about, it saves a lot of time if you know certain things up front.

But that's why political threads have a tendency to get nasty -- it's because each side is pretty much diametrically opposed to the goals/wants/ needs/desires of the other. And under most circumstances, people in that situation are called "enemies". And most people aren't particuarly nice to their enemies.

Jon

KWhit

05-15-2004, 10:00 PM

I hope you get killed before you procreate.
Ban this guy, please.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:01 PM

Yeah, ban me, because a joke is so much worse than Jon advocating genocide.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:03 PM

Bucc, the polls now show Bush behind. Polls change with the wind. In fact, I have seen plenty of polls that indicate people are very nervous with this administration's policies concerning individual freedom.

We'll just have to see in November. That's a poll that means something.
I wasn't speaking of "polls" such as these. But I call BS on your statement because 1) people don't know what individual freedom means, 2) half of any respondents will automatically say the opposite of the current administration and 3) they still want the security.

Sun Tzu

05-15-2004, 10:05 PM

One guess where these guys polled in on the "show youre age" thread.

By the way I'm being sarcastic.

JonInMiddleGA

05-15-2004, 10:05 PM

Without commenting on the thread's original content, I'd say that the rollie-eyes doesn't do this comment justice. Just when I think I can't possibly see a more idiotic thing on this board, someone shows me there's no end to ignorance. While I appreciate the bit of defense, I guess some combination of fairness or masochism compels me to make a comment:

Speaking as one of the targets of that comment, I really wasn't bothered by it. Not one iota.

He was being honest. Blunt, but honest. And I got no problem with that. Hell, I prefer it to somebody who wiggles & waffles & suffers constant chafing from their efforts to always straddle the fence.

Now, it ain't real likely that he & I are going to exchange Christmas cards. Nor do I think it'd be a real good idea for us to have lunch together, or for anyone to invite us to a party with an open bar & then seat us together.

But I don't think it's a stretch to think that we knew that before this thread ever started.

Anyhoo, I'm not trying to step on your right to comment on his comment, that's your call not mine. I'm just saying that I wasn't really offended by his post in the least.

Jon

{edited to add} And FTR (not to Cuckoo, just in general), I'm about as quick-trigger, hard-ass, heavy-handed moderator style as you'll ever find. But I don't see anything that remotely warrants a banning or even a warning in this thread. (but hey, it's early yet http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)

samifan24

05-15-2004, 10:05 PM

People like you and Jon are bigger threats to this country than Al-Queda ever was or is.

This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on this board. They're right: the roll-eyes smilie doesn't do this comment justice.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:05 PM

I wasn't speaking of "polls" such as these. But I call BS on your statement because 1) people don't know what individual freedom means, 2) half of any respondents will automatically say the opposite of the current administration and 3) they still want the security.

So, does that mean it was acceptable for this guy to be arrested or not?

Hurst2112

05-15-2004, 10:05 PM

Now Hurst, I ain't bitchin' at you, and I'm not trying to be an ass to you, so I hope you take this as a general remark & not a personal one, but ... I keep answering this question when I see it, and I really don't understand why it even occasionally surprises anyone when things get nasty in a political thread.

It's because the two sides really don't like each other. Not hardly a little bit. And often, we find that we downright dislike the other side. And sometimes, we sincerely & deeply fucking hate each other.

I don't really believe (R) or (D) have much to do with it, those are just labels that are handy to apply to the vast amount of differences in beliefs & values that drive the two sides, a sort of time-saving shorthand that covers a lot of territory. Sort of like the "Here's Your Sign" song talks about, it saves a lot of time if you know certain things up front.

But that's why political threads have a tendency to get nasty -- it's because each side is pretty much diametrically opposed to the goals/wants/ needs/desires of the other. And under most circumstances, people in that situation are called "enemies". And most people aren't particuarly nice to their enemies.

Jon

I appreciate you explaining it to me. I feel good knowing that I am right when I say that it is stupid to 'fucking hate each other' about something as trivial as this.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:07 PM

Now Hurst, I ain't bitchin' at you, and I'm not trying to be an ass to you, so I hope you take this as a general remark & not a personal one, but ... I keep answering this question when I see it, and I really don't understand why it even occasionally surprises anyone when things get nasty in a political thread.

It's because the two sides really don't like each other. Not hardly a little bit. And often, we find that we downright dislike the other side. And sometimes, we sincerely & deeply fucking hate each other.

I don't really believe (R) or (D) have much to do with it, those are just labels that are handy to apply to the vast amount of differences in beliefs & values that drive the two sides, a sort of time-saving shorthand that covers a lot of territory. Sort of like the "Here's Your Sign" song talks about, it saves a lot of time if you know certain things up front.

But that's why political threads have a tendency to get nasty -- it's because each side is pretty much diametrically opposed to the goals/wants/ needs/desires of the other. And under most circumstances, people in that situation are called "enemies". And most people aren't particuarly nice to their enemies.

Jon
I certainly agree. What some here do not realize because they are too young or only have short-term memories is that it was exactly like this 8 years ago, 20 years ago, 32 years ago, and the farther you go back, it gets much, much worse.

History repeats itself because not many even know their history or how to put perspective on things.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:07 PM

So, does that mean it was acceptable for this guy to be arrested or not?
Depending on the local laws.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:09 PM

Depending on the local laws.

So, are you saying that local laws violative of the 1st amendment are acceptable? Or are you saying that he engaged in speech falling outside of the protections of the 1st amendment?

Hurst2112

05-15-2004, 10:10 PM

I certainly agree. What some here do not realize because they are too young or only have short-term memories is that it was exactly like this 8 years ago, 20 years ago, 32 years ago, and the farther you go back, it gets much, much worse.

History repeats itself because not many even know their history or how to put perspective on things.

I don't get how that pertains to me. I have a pretty good grasp of political history, and a damn good memory. I just don't know what this has to do with guys taking cheap shots in a thread about something that could be pretty interesting to read, if all the 'fuck's' and 'kill you's were taken out of the mix. I know it can be done, even with the barbarians here. :D

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:12 PM

Dola:

Amazingly, being called ignorant by samifan24 and cuckoo doesn't bother me.

samifan24

05-15-2004, 10:13 PM

Dola:

Amazingly, being called ignorant by samifan24 and cuckoo doesn't bother me.

I wonder why.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:13 PM

I wonder why.

I think you know why.

HornedFrog Purple

05-15-2004, 10:14 PM

Things like this has been going on for decades/centuries. It gets more attention now because 1) media wants to create perception and 2) we have a public eager for "news" like this.

How can you blame "them" for the culture when the public demands security. Go look at all of those polls the clearly shows that the public favors security over privacy. Go look at all of those Congressional representatives (including yours) that gleefully passed the Patriot Act (which the DoJ is doing job that is mandated by Congress, including laws that has been on the books for many years).

You know I am a vocal libertarian so I am not making excuses. I am just pointing out the double standard: everyone wants nothing to happen but when measures are taken to ensure that nothing happens, the same people become critical.

The problem with this is that people have been brainwashed into thinking that you can't have one without sacrificing the other. Both main idealogies are so hell-bent on proving one way is better than the other that they don't step back and realize security and privacy can coexist rather nicely.

But since these idealogies use this as a foundation of opposition for the sake of opposition, it will continue.

(good post btw)

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:14 PM

So, are you saying that local laws violative of the 1st amendment are acceptable? Or are you saying that he engaged in speech falling outside of the protections of the 1st amendment?
Read the First Amendment again, esp. how it begins.

One can engage in "free speech" while violating numerous local laws. Such was a common tactic by the KKK in exercising their right to free speech in burning crosses and vocally hating blacks. So should their should be no sense of Hate Speech laws on the books?

Cuckoo

05-15-2004, 10:15 PM

While I appreciate the bit of defense, I guess some combination of fairness or masochism compels me to make a comment:

Speaking as one of the targets of that comment, I really wasn't bothered by it. Not one iota.

He was being honest. Blunt, but honest. And I got no problem with that. Hell, I prefer it to somebody who wiggles & waffles & suffers constant chafing from their efforts to always straddle the fence.

Now, it ain't real likely that he & I are going to exchange Christmas cards. Nor do I think it'd be a real good idea for us to have lunch together, or for anyone to invite us to a party with an open bar & then seat us together.

But I don't think it's a stretch to think that we knew that before this thread ever started.

Anyhoo, I'm not trying to step on your right to comment on his comment, that's your call not mine. I'm just saying that I wasn't really offended by his post in the least.

Jon

{edited to add} And FTR (not to Cuckoo, just in general), I'm about as quick-trigger, hard-ass, heavy-handed moderator style as you'll ever find. But I don't see anything that remotely warrants a banning or even a warning in this thread. (but hey, it's early yet http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)

I wasn't trying to defend you Jon. I know you can handle that. :D

I'm certainly no guy on the fence, and I've made my share of enemies around this place in all likelihood. And, to be completely honest, I don't really care one way or another about his comparison. I knew it wouldn't hurt anyone's feelings. I just wanted to point out, as a few others have, that it's an incredibly ignorant comment.

Now, as far as his wishing death upon another forum member... Joke or not, I think that's going too far.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:16 PM

But since these idealogies use this as a foundation of opposition for the sake of opposition, it will continue.

Very good insight.

What continues to get me is that many do not realize they are doing this. They think they have stumbled upon something new or revealing. It's not.

sovereignstar

05-15-2004, 10:17 PM

Come on, Come on
You think you drive me crazy, well
Come on, Come on
You and whose army
You and your cronies
Come on, Come on
Holy Roman empire
Come on if you think
Come on if you think
You can take us on
You can take us on

You and whose army
You and your cronies

You forget so easy

We rise tonight
We ride tonight
Ghost horses
Ghost horses
We rise tonight
We ride tonight
Ghost horses
Ghost horses
Ghost horses

~you and whose army--radiohead

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:21 PM

Read the First Amendment again, esp. how it begins.

One can engage in "free speech" while violating numerous local laws. Such was a common tactic by the KKK in exercising their right to free speech in burning crosses and vocally hating blacks. So should their should be no sense of Hate Speech laws on the books?

Hate speech is a totally separate thread. I'm glad to be discussing issues with you; at least you have a clue and a brain.

I have read the 1st amendment quite a few times. Are you aware that content-based restrictions on free speech are subject to strict scrutiny? This means that the courts will permit regulation of content of speech only so long as the regulation is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest, and there is no less restrictive alternative.

Any local law that serves to abridge speech due to its content is subject to this evaluation. He was arrested for the content of his sign. What law could he be violating that would survive that standard?

JonInMiddleGA

05-15-2004, 10:23 PM

Now, as far as his wishing death upon another forum member... Joke or not, I think that's going too far.
Okay, sidebar time.

Let's try to take it out of the current specific situation, and try to look at what I'm gonna ask in general terms (theoretically, that could take politics & personalities out of the equation a little better)

Q: If that's how somebody really feels, or even if that's just the stream-of- consciousness reaction they had to something or another -- is it really all that much worse if they say it/type it?

I tend to feel like expressing it isn't all that big a deal if that's (at the risk of a touchy-feely phrase) "what's in their heart". It's there, it's real enough whether it's permanent or temporary, so if anything I think it might be better to know it straight-up.

Sorry for the sidebar, I know this is swerving even beyond the already derailed orginal topic, but I figured I'd throw it out there anyway.

oykib

05-15-2004, 10:27 PM

While I can see why sjshaw's more dangerous comment seems like hyperbole, it really isn't.

Most people read a comment like that and think that it's a baseless insult because, whether you agree with his political views or not, we'd all probalbly put money on the fact that JoninMiddleGa is among the least likely person on the board to commit a crime-- including hurting anyone. Al-Qaeda obviously wants to kill a lot of Americans.

However, Al-Qaeda is not capable of killing enough Americans to destroy the country. "security" too far are much likelier to be able to change the country into something uncomfortable to someone with libertarian beliefs.

I haven't read the article, yet. So I'll reserve my own judgement until then.

clintl

05-15-2004, 10:28 PM

stevew

05-15-2004, 10:29 PM

Holy shit. Can I be part of Al-Qa'ida like Jon?

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:31 PM

OK, let's back off the personal attacks on each other, and direct them back where they belong - on the idiotic, overreacting policeman Schmid, Ashcroft, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the rest of the authority figures that are making a mockery out of democracy and freedom.

A few months ago, I probably would have called you out on this, but I am starting to see your point.

Also, I'm fine with stopping my part in the personal attacks and getting back to some discussion on the original topic.

JeffNights

05-15-2004, 10:31 PM

Holy shit. Can I be part of Al-Qa'ida like Jon?

Dont you mean the C.I.A?

Pumpy Tudors

05-15-2004, 10:32 PM

Some of you people are weird.

stevew

05-15-2004, 10:34 PM

Dont you mean the C.I.A?

Is there a difference?

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:34 PM

OK, let's back off the personal attacks on each other, and direct them back where they belong - on the idiotic, overreacting policeman Schmid, Ashcroft, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the rest of the authority figures that are making a mockery out of democracy and freedom.
You know it's funny but I have recently read a very similar quote by someone speaking in Congress during WW2 (the "mockery of democracy and freedom").

stevew

05-15-2004, 10:34 PM

Is there a difference?

Oh, and I was just joking on that.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:35 PM

Oh, and I was just joking on that.

Smart post. Otherwise you could be banned.

Chubby

05-15-2004, 10:36 PM

I'm totally convinced that the Dems could throw a baboon up there in November and we'd still win. This is merely example #97455 why.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:38 PM

However, Al-Qaeda is not capable of killing enough Americans to destroy the country. "security" too far are much likelier to be able to change the country into something uncomfortable to someone with libertarian beliefs.

Only if enough people are fearful or believe in only the fear that are fed to them.

clintl

05-15-2004, 10:39 PM

Only if enough people are fearful or believe in only the fear that are fed to them.

FDR said that more eloquently. :)

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:40 PM

I'm totally convinced that the Dems could throw a baboon up there in November and we'd still win. This is merely example #97455 why.
40 states have been decided. Electoral votes are split. The remaining votes are yet to be decided.

Btw, who is "we'd"?

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:40 PM

Only if enough people are fearful or believe in only the fear that are fed to them.

Fearful enough to vote "yes" in polls asking whether they approve of their representative voting to sacrifice personal freedoms to protect us from terrorists?

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:41 PM

FDR said that more eloquently. :)
Then learn what he meant and how it applies to today's media and today's culture bent on instant gratification.

clintl

05-15-2004, 10:42 PM

40 states have been decided. Electoral votes are split. The remaining votes are yet to be decided.

Btw, who is "we'd"?

It's WAY too early to make that kind of assumption. An enormous amount of opinion-changing stuff can happen in six months.

Chubby

05-15-2004, 10:42 PM

40 states have been decided. Electoral votes are split. The remaining votes are yet to be decided.

Btw, who is "we'd"?

We'd = democrats.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:43 PM

Then learn what he meant and how it applies to today's media and today's culture bent on instant gratification.

I totally agree with your assessment of today's culture. I didn't want to watch "Bowling for Columbine" because I was afraid I'd throw my TV out the window, but his "culture of fear" and the news media's role in it was something to think about.

It makes protecting our freedoms even more important.

HornedFrog Purple

05-15-2004, 10:43 PM

You know it's funny but I have recently read a very similar quote by someone speaking in Congress during WW2 (the "mockery of democracy and freedom").

Aye, and I'm willing to bet if I looked around I could find one during McCarthyism too... and Vietnam... and Watergate... and the Iran/Contra affair... and Whitewater... (sigh)

clintl

05-15-2004, 10:43 PM

Then learn what he meant and how it applies to today's media and today's culture bent on instant gratification.

This isn't 1933.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:44 PM

Fearful enough to vote "yes" in polls asking whether they approve of their representative voting to sacrifice personal freedoms to protect us from terrorists?
Again, I would argue that "they" don't know what personal freedoms (esp. responsibilities) mean. If past Democratic administrations are any indication (they are), we should expect no difference if Kerry comes in. They want to please the public to make their government runs their lives.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:46 PM

This isn't 1933.
It's the same "democracy and freedom" that people were and are still talking about.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:49 PM

Again, I would argue that "they" don't know what personal freedoms (esp. responsibilities) mean. If past Democratic administrations are any indication (they are), we should expect no difference if Kerry comes in. They want to please the public to make their government runs their lives.

From past Democratic administrations, we could expect judges to be appointed who understand the importance of the 1st amendment. Of course, they will have their own shortcomings, but on the most important issue, they are better.

Instead, with republicans, we get people like Dennis Shedd on the 4th circuit (whom I have appeared in front of) who really don't care about the public or their rights.

HornedFrog Purple

05-15-2004, 10:49 PM

This isn't 1933.

The medium has changed, but it's the same thing. 71 years ago, people were huddled around their radio, now we just get more radios.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:52 PM

but his "culture of fear" and the news media's role in it was something to think about.

So why did contribute to it by your first post (and some of the subsequent ones)? Your example is neither a singular or exception event. If the "news media's role" promotes the "culture of fear", then why buy all of the negativism?

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:53 PM

The medium has changed, but it's the same thing. 71 years ago, people were huddled around their radio, now we just get more radios.
...and more journalists whose only goal is to discredit, spread fear and promote agendas.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:59 PM

From past Democratic administrations, we could expect judges to be appointed who understand the importance of the 1st amendment. Of course, they will have their own shortcomings, but on the most important issue, they are better.

Instead, with republicans, we get people like Dennis Shedd on the 4th circuit (whom I have appeared in front of) who really don't care about the public or their rights.
Hmmm, Democratic judges that care about the public and their individual rights when it comes to environmental laws, property rights, hate speech, etc.? Show me.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 10:59 PM

Sorry for the quadola.

clintl

05-15-2004, 10:59 PM

I am thankful for the journalists who expose the lies and misdeeds of our elected and appointed officials. They are doing exactly what a free press is supposed to do.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 10:59 PM

So why did contribute to it by your first post (and some of the subsequent ones)? Your example is neither a singular or exception event. If the "news media's role" promotes the "culture of fear", then why buy all of the negativism?

How did I contribute to it by reporting an actual event that it disturbing to anybody who believes in freedom of speech? Not only an actual event, but simply the latest in a long series of similar events. Google this and you will find that this administration's policies on this issue are unprecented in their frequency and severity.

If I see a clear example of dangerous activity by people who can put me in jail for my opinions, should I remain silent so as not to contribute to the "culture of fear?"

Also, you have not answered my question about strict scrutiny.

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:00 PM

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/local/8664932.htm

I'm a republican, but I'm voting for Kerry. This kind of garbage is out of control. Ashcroft is the most dangerous man since J. Edgar Hoover. This country is totally farked.

Can't say I truly believe this line, but that's just me....

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 11:00 PM

I am thankful for the journalists who expose the lies and misdeeds of our elected and appointed officials. They are doing exactly what a free press is supposed to do.
I can think of a period of 8 years when they were quite reluctant to do this.

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:01 PM

Dola

You speak, believe, and act like a liberal, based on your posts. Sounds like you werent really a republican to begin with

But just my own opinion....

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 11:03 PM

but simply the latest in a long series of similar events.
Going back how long? 3 years? 13 years? 113 years? I still stand by the statement that people want security over privacy and want to damn well prevent any bad guys from doing anything to anyone.

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:05 PM

I can think of a period of 8 years when they were quite reluctant to do this.
Come on. Play it, you know you want to. Play the old Repub "when all else fails" routine, play the Clinton card. You know you want to, just cause it makes you look like fool is no reason not to.

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 11:06 PM

If I see a clear example of dangerous activity by people who can put me in jail for my opinions, should I remain silent so as not to contribute to the "culture of fear?"
But you (and I) do not know the facts and evidence, which I know you appreciate. You are basing everything off of something that should be taken with a grain of salt or at least, with scepticism.

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:07 PM

Come on. Play it, you know you want to. Play the old Repub "when all else fails" routine, play the Clinton card. You know you want to, just cause it makes you look like fool is no reason not to.

I pray that you don't actually believe this....

Buccaneer

05-15-2004, 11:08 PM

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:08 PM

Hmmm, Democratic judges that care about the public and their individual rights when it comes to environmental laws, property rights, hate speech, etc.? Show me.

I specifically limited my comments to the First Amendment, and said that democratic appointees have their own shortcomings.

Would you like me to dust off my Con Law textbook and tabulate how democratic appointees voted on free speech issues vs. republican appointees?

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:10 PM

But you (and I) do not know the facts and evidence, which I know you appreciate. You are basing everything off of something that should be taken with a grain of salt or at least, with scepticism.

I have read the pleadings in the Bursey case and the opinions. I have done the same in prior cases like this. I know the facts. I will do it in this case as well, but where there is smoke, there is usually fire.

clintl

05-15-2004, 11:11 PM

But since you brought it up, I would say 1993-2001 fits as well, don't you?

No, it doesn't. The Clinton scandal was heavily reported.

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:13 PM

I was thinking of 1953-1961. But since you brought it up, I would say 1993-2001 fits as well, don't you?
Yeah, I totally forgot the non-stop coverage for months and months over whether our President got a blowjob. I totally any random person saying "boo" about the Clintons was blownup and made into a "-gate" and reported on ad nauseum.

You're so right, the media didn't cover anything :rolleyes:

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:13 PM

I have read the pleadings in the Bursey case and the opinions. I have done the same in prior cases like this. I know the facts. I will do it in this case as well, but where there is smoke, there is usually fire.

So, if I make up a story about how Kerry is gay or whatever publicly perceived issue is wrong, it's probably true, because I see smoke?

C'mon, you ought to have a stronger defense then that is...

No, it doesn't. The Clinton scandal was heavily reported.

Which means nothing. Britney Spears is also reported. Doesnt mean it's a bad thing

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:14 PM

No, it doesn't. The Clinton scandal was heavily reported.
You're forgetting Rule A in the new Republican Handbook. "When all else fails, blame the Clinton's".

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:14 PM

Can't say I truly believe this line, but that's just me....

You are free to believe what you wish. I have only voted for 3-4 democrats in my life. That number will increase by quite a bit this election.

I realize that things will not change much, but I'm tired of ultraconservative federal judges, and hope some balance will be restored, especially here in the south.

Also, if Kerry wins, republicans will likely hold Congress in 2008, which I still favor, and Hillary will be shut out until no earlier than 2012, when she will hopefully be too old or irrelevant to run.

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:15 PM

I pray that you don't actually believe this....
Really? What was Bucc's response huh?

panerd

05-15-2004, 11:15 PM

Well, Kerry leads in the latest poll. So America must be sick of this shit that is going on. This was the line of reasonng earlier, right?

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:16 PM

Which means nothing. Britney Spears is also reported. Doesnt mean it's a bad thing

I suggest you re-read the quotes.

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:16 PM

I realize that things will not change much, but I'm tired of ultraconservative federal judges, and hope some balance will be restored, especially here in the south.

Move to the West Coast. You can do anything out here. Hell, naked kids is considered art in many places around here as well. Thanks 9th Circuit! :rolleyes:

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:18 PM

No, it doesn't. The Clinton scandal was heavily reported.

I read it again. It talks about Clinton scandal was heavily reported. That it was, since our highest official lied under oath. Yet everyone still holds him as a saint. I'd vote for him again, but he's no better or worse then George Bush.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:20 PM

So, if I make up a story about how Kerry is gay or whatever publicly perceived issue is wrong, it's probably true, because I see smoke?

C'mon, you ought to have a stronger defense then that is...

You completely miss the point. In this case, we have well-documented policies regarding the placement of protestors into ridiculous "free speech zones," how they are unfairly enforced due to content of speech, and the subsequent arrest and prosecution of people who engage in the same activity as the man in the story. Read the Bursey case documents. Read the testimony of the Secret Service agents.

Documented policies, and the past consistent enforcement of those policies, are highly relevant to this event.

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:21 PM

I read it again. It talks about Clinton scandal was heavily reported. That it was, since our highest official lied under oath. Yet everyone still holds him as a saint. I'd vote for him again, but he's no better or worse then George Bush.

He lied about getting BLOWN!

And you equate this to the stripping of personal freedoms, going to war on a personal vendetta, relying on pathetically inaccurate intel to promote a war?

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:22 PM

Move to the West Coast. You can do anything out here. Hell, naked kids is considered art in many places around here as well. Thanks 9th Circuit! :rolleyes:

You also have some of the most conservative judges in the country. Ever heard of Alex Kozinski? Google him.

I'll take a liberal 9th circuit to balance out a conservative 4th circuit.

panerd

05-15-2004, 11:23 PM

You also have some of the most conservative judges in the country. Ever heard of Alex Kozinski? Google him.

I'll take a liberal 9th circuit to balance out a conservative 4th circuit.

Why would you do this? You have always considered yourself Republican! :rolleyes:

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:25 PM

Well, Kerry leads in the latest poll. So America must be sick of this shit that is going on. This was the line of reasonng earlier, right?

Actually, I posted:

Bucc, the polls now show Bush behind. Polls change with the wind.

We'll just have to see in November. That's a poll that means something.

Certainly, you were't referring to me?

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:26 PM

Why would you do this? You have always considered yourself Republican! :rolleyes:

I considered myself a republican, yes. Are you saying that means republicans are incapable of supporting a somewhat balanced judicial system?

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:28 PM

He lied about getting BLOWN!

:rolleyes:

panerd

05-15-2004, 11:28 PM

let me get this straight...

Sjshaw starts spewing out some nonsense about how this latest FUGB controversy is yet another reason why George W. Bush is the anti-christ. But instead of just ignoring him you try to defend arresting a man for carrying a sign? He has basically proven that he has no conservative qualities whatsoever. (except for his supposed voting record) But do you guys really think it is the best approach to defend nonsense like this sign thing?

How about saying this sign thing is stupid but really has nothing to do with Ashcroft? Because if you really want to defend arresting someone for carrying a sign, then maybe you do have some issues with what this country is all about.

panerd

05-15-2004, 11:30 PM

Actually, I posted:

Certainly, you were't referring to me?

no actually this post was aimed at the contigent that uses polls to try and prove points, but blows off polls that go against what they are arguing

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:30 PM

:rolleyes:
You're right Bug, lying about getting a hummer and say trading weapons for hostages are totally on the same level. :rolleyes:

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:30 PM

no actually this post was aimed at the contigent that uses polls to try and prove points, but blows off polls that go against what they are arguing
That is the political way (both sides)

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:32 PM

let me get this straight...

How about saying this sign thing is stupid but really has nothing to do with Ashcroft?

Do you understand that federal prosecutors don't wipe their ass unless Ashcroft gives the go-ahead? Do you realize that this whole pattern of selective prosecution starts and ends at the justice department? Do you understand that this man would not have been arrested unless the justice department signed off on the policy to begin with? Do you understand the role of the Attorney General at all?

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:32 PM

You're right Bug, lying about getting a hummer and say trading weapons for hostages are totally on the same level. :rolleyes:

Funny how some people defend the constitution's freedom of Speech but say that lying, under oath, isn't so bad?!?

Aesyrqwe

05-15-2004, 11:33 PM

Suicane75

05-15-2004, 11:35 PM

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Thats just to cover the next 3 pages in this thread.

:D

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:36 PM

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:37 PM

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:40 PM

Why would I lie about being a republican? It's amusing, really. I've been around here a long time. Ask an FOBLer if I'm a republican, unless you are happy with your misguided assumption.

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:41 PM

Funny how some people defend the constitution's freedom of Speech but say that lying, under oath, isn't so bad?!?

Funny how I haven't ever understood why it was anybodies business what Clinton ever did outside his marriage anybody's business but his family's.

So lying about getting a blowjob is the same as lying about trading weapons for hostages?

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:42 PM

Why would I lie about being a republican? It's amusing, really. I've been around here a long time. Ask an FOBLer if I'm a republican, unless you are happy with your misguided assumption.

Because you aren't the "typical" republican around here. Unless you conform to their ideals you can't possible be "one of them".

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:42 PM

Why would I lie about being a republican? It's amusing, really. I've been around here a long time. Ask an FOBLer if I'm a republican, unless you are happy with your misguided assumption.

Never said you were. Only you know that. But a spade is a spade

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:44 PM

So lying about getting a blowjob is the same as lying about trading weapons for hostages?

PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:46 PM

Never said you were. Only you know that. But a spade is a spade

Originally Posted by sjshaw
I'm a republican, but I'm voting for Kerry. This kind of garbage is out of control. Ashcroft is the most dangerous man since J. Edgar Hoover. This country is totally farked.

Can't say I truly believe this line, but that's just me....

Sounds like you're calling me a liar. Maybe I'm wrong.

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:46 PM

PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.
Are you Bubba in disguise?

Answer the question... so lying about getting a blowjob is the same as lying about trading weapons for hostages?

MrBug708

05-15-2004, 11:54 PM

Answer the question... so lying about getting a blowjob is the same as lying about trading weapons for hostages?

Trying to pigeon-hole me huh? I've already answered it twice.

Yes. Especially underoath

Simms

05-15-2004, 11:57 PM

Which of the following statements isn't true?

a) I strongly support the War on Terror
b) I strongly believe the Iraq, while not necessarily directly involved with 9/11 is an enormously key component of the overall War on Terror
c) I believe that, on foreign policy, George W. Bush has done an adequate job (domestically is another story) and is worthy of re-election for the sake of the War on Terror
d) I have voted Democrat my entire life, and will likely vote for Kerry in November.

Answer: None of the above.

Just because somebody doesn't spend all their time spewing hard-line partisan rhetoric doesn't mean he isn't what he says he is. I've known Steve for more than three years and spoken to him on many many occasions. Until tonight, he was as republican as anybody I've ever known. Why feel compelled to argue a man's personal politics?

My completely unscientific and unsubstantiated opinion is that about 25-30% of the country is on the far left, 25-30% on the far right, and the other 40-50% could go either way at the drop of a hat. That doesn't mean they're not "Democrats" or "Republicans"....it just means they have enough sense to think for themselves instead of blindly following one party or another just because their father and grandfather did (and yes, I'm over-generalizing here).

Chubby

05-15-2004, 11:57 PM

Trying to pigeon-hole me huh? I've already answered it twice.

Yes. Especially underoath

And that is where we differ. I believe that something that involves national security is much more important than a personal issue which affects no one outside the family.

sjshaw

05-15-2004, 11:58 PM

I heart Simms

DukeRulesMAB

05-15-2004, 11:58 PM

How about saying this sign thing is stupid but really has nothing to do with Ashcroft?

The original article doesn't say for sure, but almost certainly what happened here was in some significant part related to the "free speech zone" set up by the executive branch. And I think it is safe to say that something like that was probably run by Justice at some point, unless you think they're just making shit up w/ respect to the Constitution (which would be even more damning than saying they misinterpreted what they could get away with under the Constitution).

For more (albeit relatively brief) discussion on the free speech zone, I recommend this link from a conservative/libertarian blogger:

http://volokh.com/2003_08_10_volokh_archive.html#106097167158746230

I suspect many of the people arguing with Shaw in this thread would very much like many of his (and his colleagues') viewpoints, particularly on the 2nd Amendment.

-----------------------------------

As for Shaw being a "real" Republican, whatever that is, there are two branches of the conservative party, the theo-Republicans and the libertarian-Republicans. They meld in some places, but disagree wildly on many others. Right now, the national Republican party as a whole is leaning toward the theo-Republican side, and that necessarily is going to miff some members of the other side. The degree to which it will hurt the Republicans is dependant on 1) how far toward the theo-side they tilt, and 2) how competant the Democrats are in luring the displaced libertarian-Republicans in.

For full disclosure, I'm a pretty liberal Democrat. Our party is similarly fractured in many places, though it's harder to put it in two distinct camps liek the Republican party. I also think our party is pretty poorly run on the national level at the moment, and though I will vote for Kerry, I have no confidence in his ability to actually win, or the national Dems' ability to recognize the opportunity to draw in some libertarian/fiscally conservative Republicans, much less lure them in.

Finally, I suggest for those questioning Shaw's Republican/conservative credentials, to do a search for threads that he and John Galt both appeared in. Hint: They didn't agree much.

Hurst2112

05-15-2004, 11:59 PM

For the record, I have not used the "rolling eyes" graphic in this thread. Anybody who does should be disallowed from posting in the thread.

And yes, that's content-based restriction of speech, but this ain't a public forum.

/takes tongue out of cheek

What, like this?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

MrBug708

05-16-2004, 12:00 AM

And that is where we differ. I believe that something that involves national security is much more important than a personal issue which affects no one outside the family.

Heh

Chubby

05-16-2004, 12:00 AM

sjshaw

05-16-2004, 12:03 AM

Now that I've calmed down, I apologize for my part in igniting this thread earlier. A long week of depositions across the country has made me a tad irritable. My bad.

sjshaw

05-16-2004, 12:04 AM

What, like this?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Mr. Garrison]Damn you! Damn you to hell![/Mr. Garrison]

MrBug708

05-16-2004, 12:06 AM

Eh, me too

Just living in SoCal and having to listen to people shit all over what you grew up believing (whether right or wrong) gets annoying.

Desnudo

05-16-2004, 12:07 AM

As for Shaw being a "real" Republican, whatever that is, there are two branches of the conservative party, the theo-Republicans and the libertarian-Republicans. They meld in some places, but disagree wildly on many others. Right now, the national Republican party as a whole is leaning toward the theo-Republican side, and that necessarily is going to miff some members of the other side. The degree to which it will hurt the Republicans is dependant on 1) how far toward the theo-side they tilt, and 2) how competant the Democrats are in luring the displaced libertarian-Republicans in.

Ayep. I would say isn't just leaning, is completely there. Although the current wartime footing makes the tilt a little more palatable it still irks me. If you want to pick a spot where President Bush is very weak it's with the socially liberal (meaning individual rights, not welfare state), fiscally conservative types like me. I'll very likely be throwing my vote away on a third party candidate this year.

Fritz

05-16-2004, 12:10 AM

SJShaw is a big fairy

sjshaw

05-16-2004, 12:10 AM

I'd be a lot more republican if the christian nutjobs would stay the hell away. Living in S.C., that's a tall order.

MrBug708

05-16-2004, 12:10 AM

I'll very likely be throwing my vote away on a third party candidate this year.

As will I.

MrBug708

05-16-2004, 12:11 AM

I'd be a lot more republican if the christian nutjobs would stay the hell away. Living in S.C., that's a tall order.

Christian nutjobs? :(

sjshaw

05-16-2004, 12:11 AM

SJShaw is a big fairy

I hope you die.

just kidding

sjshaw

05-16-2004, 12:15 AM

Christian nutjobs? :(

Sorry, let me clarify. Not all christians. I'm a christian (not lying). I'm talking about Jerry Falwell and the like.

Fritz

05-16-2004, 12:15 AM

I hope you die.

I hope your eyebrows keep expanding
really

sjshaw

05-16-2004, 12:17 AM

I hope your eyebrows keep expanding
really

So that's why I look like I have a chia pet on my forehead!

Fritz

05-16-2004, 12:32 AM

if thats your forehead then where was I stick... OH MY GOD

Hurst2112

05-16-2004, 12:37 AM

[Mr. Garrison]Damn you! Damn you to hell![/Mr. Garrison]

Thanks for seeing my joke. :D

sjshaw

05-16-2004, 12:45 AM

Just for the hell of it.

http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html

Sun Tzu

05-16-2004, 01:02 AM

diz thred is teh funny lolololol!!!11

Glengoyne

05-16-2004, 01:41 AM

He lied about getting BLOWN!

And you equate this to the stripping of personal freedoms, going to war on a personal vendetta, relying on pathetically inaccurate intel to promote a war?
I'm not about to play the Clinton Card. Hell I voted for the guy...Well once at least. The only problem I had with him getting blown was that he did it under oath. Now the fact that he was under oath testifying in a completely B.S. case is a bit of a mitigating circumstance. I am willing to give him plenty of leeway(I don't think I have ever spelled that word, I actually have no clue if that is correct) due to those circumstances. So he gets a pass from me for the lie. He loses a lot of credit justifying it later, and the ONE thing I was glad he was impeached for was the obstruction of justice. When he went back to his secretary (Curry?) and tried to manipulate her testimony, now that he deserved to go down for.

Now for the real reason I responded to your post. "going to war on a personal vendetta"...That is actually more ridiculous than the "War/Blood for Oil" stance. And for the last bit about the "pathetically inaccurate intel"....At the time did we really have any clue just how inaccurate that intel was? I don't think you can hold the use of bad intel against the administration for Iraq. Now if something like that happens again...then I'd agree with you.

I guess my point is that while partisan Republicans are certainly guiltly of "playing the Clinton card", You partisan Democrats are not far behind with your deck of "G.W. Cards".

Glengoyne

05-16-2004, 01:55 AM

Answer the question... so lying about getting a blowjob is the same as lying about trading weapons for hostages?
Now this is absolutely the REAGAN card.

But since you played it...I'll feel free to say I think you misplayed it. I mean You really can't compare any of Reagan's statements under oath to Clinton's. I mean Clinton's testimony ended up getting his license to practice law suspended. Reagan was a future Alzheimer's patient who didn't recall anything.

Hurst2112

05-16-2004, 01:58 AM

mmmm...Jelly Belly's.

Glengoyne

05-16-2004, 02:22 AM

Oh my take on the original topic.

Nothing is going to happen to this guy, well other than his fine. This has NOTHING to do with Ashcroft or Bush.

This guy was told his sign was inappropriate by a police officer acting on a complaint. The guy screwed around with the cop, and altered the sign so that it wouldn't offend anyone who was able to read the small print. In response, the cop cited him. Cops do this kind of thing to people who ignore their warnings/admonitions. It is not special treatment dished out by cops who got the secret email from Ashcroft.

Aesyrqwe

05-16-2004, 03:04 AM

Now this is absolutely the REAGAN card.

That was the reason for the rolleyes in my earlier post..

-Aes-

Greyroofoo

05-16-2004, 03:15 AM

If all he was doing was holding a sign, i think he had every right to do so.

If he was getting in people's faces and acting like an obnoxious jerk, I think he deserved the citation

thealmighty

05-16-2004, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Glengoyne
The only problem I had with him getting blown was that he did it under oath.I thought it was under the desk. ;)

andy m

05-16-2004, 03:22 AM

FUFOFC.

ISiddiqui

05-16-2004, 03:25 AM

Going back to the opening article (I know it's hard)... what a fucking joke. Free speech anyone? Anyone at all?

Chief Rum

05-16-2004, 03:29 AM

Hmmm...I find I generally agree with sjshaw here from the specific perspective that this guy's right to free speech is being violated. I'm also not a big fan of the "free speech zones" or the Patriot Act, and if I had the choice, Ashcroft would be out on his ass right after I kicked out Rumsfeld.

Still, I think stretching the actions of one police officer acting on a local law into a sign of the Ashcroftian approach to 1984 Big Brother style restrictions of civil liberties is taking things way too far.

To then use that lone event to ditch your entire value system, as sjshaw is apparently doing, just seems ridiculous to me. Hay, he's free to use his vote as he sees fit, but if he is as Republican as he and others have said (a fact I don't doubt, BTW), he should know just how much he is risking in other areas of the government and what other values he might be sacrificing in order to turn around this policy.

As I have said before, there are a lot of things I don't like about Bush. But it scares me to think of Kerry in office. So, given no other choices (realistically, at least), I have to vote Bush.

CR

ISiddiqui

05-16-2004, 03:34 AM

I didn't see it as him changing his position based on ONE EVENT, but on the series of events dealing with the Bill of Rights since Ashcroft came into his office. And the Justice Department's role on the Bill of Rights has been piss poor, enough to make a Libertarian vote Kerry if that is that person's biggest issue.

Ben E Lou

05-16-2004, 05:15 AM

I hope you get killed before you procreate.181 posts overnight in this thread, and I don't have to read any further than this before handing out the first suspension. One week in the box. Continuing to read on...

Chief Rum

05-16-2004, 05:49 AM

181 posts overnight in this thread, and I don't have to read any further than this before handing out the first suspension. One week in the box. Continuing to read on...

Anyone else see the irony in this? :)

Actually, I applaud sjshaw for having a good discussion after that initial nonsense, although I agree with SkyDog's decision, as no deed should go unpunished (even if joking).

CR

Ben E Lou

05-16-2004, 05:54 AM

Anyone else see the irony in this? :)

Actually, I applaud sjshaw for having a good discussion after that initial nonsense, although I agree with SkyDog's decision, as no deed should go unpunished (even if joking).

CRHaving read the rest of the discussion, I see the irony as well. That doesn't change the decision. ;)

Chubby

05-16-2004, 06:59 AM

Anyone else see the irony in this? :)

Actually, I applaud sjshaw for having a good discussion after that initial nonsense, although I agree with SkyDog's decision, as no deed should go unpunished (even if joking).

CR

Not really any irony at all, 1st amendment protects your speech from the governement not on a private message board.

Jon

05-16-2004, 07:14 AM

PERJURY - When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

There also has to be proof that the misstatement was MATERIAL. Simply lying under oath is not perjury. The issue in Clinton's case wasn't that he lied but whether his statement was material. (well legally that was the issue, despite the misrepresentation by the Clinton-haters). I found it hard to believe how a lie regarding a consensual relationship is relevent to a sexual harassment suit, which main basis is non-consensual behavior.

Chief Rum

05-16-2004, 07:32 AM

Not really any irony at all, 1st amendment protects your speech from the governement not on a private message board.

Quit nitpicking, Captain Obvious. Just taking a very general view on someone losing his "free speech" arguing in support of free speech.

CR

Tekneek

05-16-2004, 08:26 AM

"Attention whoring" is not a crime. I doubt very seriously that walking around with a sign at a public gathering that has the letters F, U, G, and B on them is a crime. If that is a crime, we are certainly not in the "land of the free" anymore.

Ryno

05-16-2004, 12:36 PM

I was in the same area that day visiting my grandparents. It's a tiny town without much to do, so when I heard that the President's motorcade was going through the main strip, I went up there to check it out.

Across the street from me was an aging hippie and a half dozen kids holding up signs like: "Go back to Texas", "No Blood for Oil", "Honk if you hate George Bush" and others. There wasn't any foul language, but none of them were very flattering.

A local cop did get out of his car and talked to them for a few minutes, but they weren't arrested and they stood there with their signs the whole time, even as local cops, state cops, FBI, the Secret Service and the President himself drove by.

Too bad for them that they were on the wrong side of the road and the President most likely didn't see them. :D