Secret Service investigating removal of three from Bush visit

[SunDevil]

Just think that this is pretty pathetic considering that these events are paid for with Tax payers money.

http://www.kctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3136534

DENVER -- The U.S. Secret Service on Monday said it was investigating the claims of three people who said they were removed from President Bush's town hall meeting on Social Security last week after being singled out because of a bumper sticker on their car.

The three said they had obtained tickets through the office of Rep. Bob Beauprez, R-Colo., had passed through security and were preparing to take their seats when they were approached by what they thought was a Secret Service agent who asked them to leave.

One woman, Karen Bauer, 38, a marketing coordinator from Denver, said the agent put his hand on her elbow and steered her away from her seat and toward an exit.

"The Secret Service had nothing to do with that," said Lon Garner, special agent in charge of the Secret Service district office in Denver. "We are very sensitive to the First Amendment and general assembly rights as protected by the Constitution."

The Secret Service is in charge of protecting the president.

The three who were removed, along with their attorney, Dan Recht, met with Garner Monday. Recht said he may file a lawsuit based on the group's alleged violation of their First Amendment rights.

Garner said the group appeared confused as to who asked them to leave and declined to release further details, citing an ongoing investigation.

Alex Young, 25, an Internet technology worker from Denver who was among the three removed from the event March 17 at Wings over the Rockies, said officials told them the next day they were identified as belonging to the "No Blood for Oil" group.

Young said they belong to no such group, but the car they drove to the event had a bumper sticker that read: "No More Blood for Oil."

"I don't think a bumper sticker on a friend's car should disqualify me from seeing the president," Young said.

Beauprez distributed tickets to the event, which was part of President Bush's effort to gain support for his plan to overhaul Social Security. Messages left after-hours at Beauprez's office were not immediately returned Monday. A call to Bush's advance team in Denver went unanswered Monday afternoon.

Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said the congressman had asked the Secret Service about the group's allegations.

Young, who along with Bauer and lawyer Leslie Weise, 39, is a member of the Denver Progressives, a political activist group. He said the three had T-shirts underneath their business attire that read, "Stop the Lies" and they had talked about exposing them during Bush's visit. He said they had scrapped the plan by the time they arrived at the museum.

Recht said the T-shirts did not play a role in the group's removal.

"They hadn't done anything wrong. They weren't dressed inappropriately, they didn't' say anything inappropriate," Recht said. "They were kicked out of this venue and not allowed to hear what the president had to say based solely on this political bumper sticker.

"The very essence of the First Amendment is that you can't be punished for the speech you make, the statements you make," Recht said.

Several high profile groups, including the older citizens' lobby AARP, oppose changes to Social Security that would privatize the country's retirement safety net.

President Bush has visited at least 17 states since the State of the Union to gain support for his plan, meeting with people who are generally supportive.

Some people who have stood up to disrupt Bush while he was talking have been removed. But a group called Americans United to Protect Social Security said there have been at least two additional instances where people who have done nothing wrong have been removed or barred from a Bush event beforehand.

One instance happened in February in Fargo North Dakota, where a "black list" of people banned from getting tickets was obtained and published by the Forum of Fargo-Moorhead. The White House and the Republican Party denied such a list existed and Gov. John Hoeven's staff said nobody was denied tickets.

Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for Americans United, called the Denver example the most egregious violation.

"They're screening the people who are allowed to come and then they're profiling them in the parking lot," he said. "It's quite extraordinary, and disappointing."

[Arles]

I would check the owner of the "No Blood for Oil" car. If he indeed was a member of the "No Blood for Oil" group, then I don't think it would be all that unrealistic for the Secret Service to assume the person getting out of that car was indeed the owner.

It's obvious this group had an agenda from the time they got there and perhaps they were overzealous with their claims (ie, involving their T-Shirts) and it flagged the Secret Service. Again, the Secret Service is only worried about protecting the president, not about political issues. Seems much ado about nothing to me.

Next time, perhaps you shouldn't drive the car of an extremist to a presidential event with a T-Shirt reading "Stop the Lies" hidden under your coat and boast about it. Then again, maybe I'm being unfair :rolleyes:

[dawgfan]

Then again, maybe I'm being unfair :rolleyes:

Yep, you are. This is a ridiculous violation of free speech rights - in case you missed it, the 3 in question had already gone through a security screening. What threat kind of threat were they to the President's life? Because they had bumper stickers that seemed to indicate they disagreed with actions of the President, they are likely to MacGyver some kind of weapon after passing through security?

This is clearly a case where someone in charge didn't want any potential for a vocal disruption of the meeting, and that it had nothing to do with protecting the physical safety of the President.

[st.cronin]

I certainly think the president has a right to give a speech without being heckled.

[flere-imsaho]

Give me a break Arles. Do you believe in the First Amendment at all?

1. The event was a "social security town hall" paid for by taxpayers.

2. The 3 people in question hadn't done anything out of the ordinary.

Do we no longer believe in dissent in this country?

[flere-imsaho]

I certainly think the president has a right to give a speech without being heckled.

What part of the First Amendment don't you understand?

[rexallllsc]

Next time, perhaps you shouldn't drive the car of an extremist to a presidential event with a T-Shirt reading "Stop the Lies" hidden under your coat and boast about it. Then again, maybe I'm being unfair :rolleyes:

extremist? Is this what we've come to in this country? Someone with a "No Blood for Oil" sticker is labelled an extremist?

I would think that someone who wants to spread our morality to the rest of world would be looked upon as much more of an extremist than someone who is opposed to violence for the sake of corporate war profiteering.

[Flasch186]

i think its funny that Arles automatically called them extremists.

what, this administration doesn't have a history of spinning, and controlling the questions, and paying pundits, and hiding pictures, and the list goes on and on. Im not shocked at all by this OR Arles immediate defense of it. There is nothing the president could do that some people on the right wouldn't be ok with..


QUICK, what do you think of DeLay?!

[dawgfan]

I certainly think the president has a right to give a speech without being heckled.

That's constitutionally questionable, but the point is these people weren't even allowed the possibility of showing any kind of dissent. This wouldn't be a big deal if they'd been allowed to attend the event, and then were ejected after heckling.

It's quite possible they would've done something to make their views known during the meeting, but they might not have. To remove these people after they followed all correct procedures and had gone through a security screening, simply because they had bumper stickers that said "No More Blood For Oil" is ridiculous. Do we think we live in a Minority Report world now where we punish people for what we think they're going to do in the future?

[st.cronin]

The first amendment is quite possibly the most poorly understood part of our constitution. In my opinion, there is no first amendment issue here at all. They were not prevented from protesting outside the building; they were removed, it appears, because they were identified as being members of a group that had a history of heckling the President. How is that a first amendment issue?

[dawgfan]

The first amendment is quite possibly the most poorly understood part of our constitution. In my opinion, there is no first amendment issue here at all. They were not prevented from protesting outside the building; they were removed, it appears, because they were identified as being members of a group that had a history of heckling the President. How is that a first amendment issue?

Because they hadn't yet done anything wrong.

[rexallllsc]

The first amendment is quite possibly the most poorly understood part of our constitution. In my opinion, there is no first amendment issue here at all. They were not prevented from protesting outside the building; they were removed, it appears, because they were identified as being members of a group that had a history of heckling the President. How is that a first amendment issue?

If they caused a disturbance they could've been removed. However, wouldn't you call this "profiling" since nothing had happened and there was no proof that anything was going to happen?

[VPI97]

What part of the First Amendment don't you understand? The First Amendment doesn't apply to a private forum.

[Desnudo]

Fuckin' hippies.

[Klinglerware]

The First Amendment doesn't apply to a private forum.

Though this was billed as a "town hall" forum...

[st.cronin]

Read the story. The three people were wearing tshirts that said 'Stop The Lies' and admitted using the event as an opportunity to expose Bush for his lies. They were begging to be ejected.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Because they hadn't yet done anything wrong.

Well, other than plan to disrupt the event (or did you forget about the t-shirts?)

Sorry, if you're expecting sympathy for the sacks of shit, you're going to have to find it somewhere other than me.

[st.cronin]

Not only that, but they showed up with a lawyer! They were gunning for trouble.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Though this was billed as a "town hall" forum...

Umm ... I can host a private affair and call it a "town hall forum", doesn't mean the event isn't private.

(No idea whether this one was or wasn't, just saying that it's easily possible to do it.)

[QuikSand]

While I think the practice of pre-screening attendees to these functions is deplorable, I don't think these people's first amendment rights were being violated.

[sabotai]

The First Amendment doesn't apply to a private forum.

Good thing this wasn't a private forum then.

(Hint: If it's a "town hall forum" paid for by taxpayers, it ain't private)

[rexallllsc]

Well, other than plan to disrupt the event (or did you forget about the t-shirts?)

Sorry, if you're expecting sympathy for the sacks of shit, you're going to have to find it somewhere other than me.

Protesters = "sacks of shit"?

Why? Because they disagree with the President?

[JonInMiddleGA]

While I think the practice of pre-screening attendees to these functions is deplorable ...

Having been through a Presidential event a number of years ago, I'm not sure that there's much of a realistic choice other than pre-screening. The security process takes days to weeks as it is (they started screening the local media for this event I'm talking about nearly a month before it took place) -- there's no way you could get people inside & have the event without some pre-event work being done.

[Flasch186]

The first amendment is quite possibly the most poorly understood part of our constitution. In my opinion, there is no first amendment issue here at all. They were not prevented from protesting outside the building; they were removed, it appears, because they were identified as being members of a group that had a history of heckling the President. How is that a first amendment issue?

Its not a first ammendment issue...its the fact that it was a "town Hall meeting." You cannot have a town hall meeting and then exclude certain people from it...had it been a fund raiser or a sponsored event than that would be totally different.

[duckman]

Protesters = "sacks of shit"?

Why? Because they disagree with the President?
Not because they disagree with the President, but instead intentionally setting up a heckling situation. They could easily shown their displeasure to the President by dressing normally and asking question during the town hall. This group was one of the groups that stormed into the Republican National Convention and disrupted the speakers.

[flere-imsaho]

The First Amendment doesn't apply to a private forum.

First of all, I doubt that. Freedom of Speech applies throughout the entire country.

Secondly, it's true the President used taxpayer's money to set up a "private event". That's, uh, great....

[sabotai]

First of all, I doubt that. Freedom of Speech applies throughout the entire country.

No, he's right. "Freedom of Speech" does not apply to private forums. Such as FOFC. You do not have a frredom of speech on this message board and may be banned from it for saying certain things.

[st.cronin]

First of all, I doubt that. Freedom of Speech applies throughout the entire country.

No it doesn't! You have no freedom of speech at work, for one thing. If you say something your boss doesn't like, he can fire you!

There was that case of the CU professor recently, who wrote something comparing the victims of 9/11 to Nazis ... his university tried to take away his tenure, and of course he cried 1st amendment, when the first amendment obviously did not apply.

[Klinglerware]

Pre-screening attendees to ascertain whether they are security threats seems to be a fact of life and something I can live with. Pre-screening attendees to ascertain whether they hold political views that are contrary to or that could embarass the president is another matter...

[flere-imsaho]

Some of you here really need to examine yourselves and see if you really believe in the principles of freedom and liberty upon which this country was founded.

[Blackadar]

The Wings over the Rockies Museum is a private place???

[rexallllsc]

Not because they disagree with the President, but instead intentionally setting up a heckling situation. They could easily shown their displeasure to the President by dressing normally and asking question during the town hall. This group was one of the groups that stormed into the Republican National Convention and disrupted the speakers.

And once that happens they can be removed.

But wouldn't removing someone based on what they wear/what they look like/what you think they're going to do be considered "profiling"?

[Tigercat]

They got tickets through normal means, a republican politician even, they passed security screenings. In my mind, in any ways this was private, they forfilled their end of a contract. If they broke the contract by disturbing the peace, then you give them the boot. But you don't say, oh we THINK you will break the contract between us, the ones in charge of this event, and you the participants, so we are throwing you out. I am not sure if I would call it illegal or unconstitutional, but one thing is for sure, it is bullshit.

[Arles]

Where to begin? ;)

Give me a break Arles. Do you believe in the First Amendment at all?

1. The event was a "social security town hall" paid for by taxpayers.
So is a public school, doesn't mean that a kid can't be sent home for wearing inappropriate attire or planning a disruption. Just because it may be paid by the government doesn't mean that rules aren't allowed on who can and cannot be allowed to enter. As long as these rules don't violate race, age, sex or religious discrimination aspects, they can be implemented and not violate someone's right to free speech.

Do we no longer believe in dissent in this country?
If Dissent equals some crackjob planning to disrupt the event with hidden T-Shirts, then - No, I don't believe they have "a right" to be in there. To be fair, if some pro-Life kooks wanted to enter a Stem cell discussion with T-Shirts saying "Using Stem Cells = Baby killers" then I would have no problem with the organizers not allowing those people in either.

Yep, you are. This is a ridiculous violation of free speech rights - in case you missed it, the 3 in question had already gone through a security screening.
Just because they don't catch the person when he enters does not mean they can't remove that person later if new information comes into their hands. What your saying if I frisk someone and don't see that they have a weapon, but let them in, they get free reign without fear of being removed. Again, perhaps someone saw their shirts underneath or cross-checked the plates on their "friend's" car.

BTW, did anyone ever follow up on who the real owner of the car was. All the story said was that the person pulled out was not the driver. But, if the driver had indeed been a member of an organization on the watch list by the Secret Service, it would be irresponsible for the Secret Service not to pull this guy. Again, most people will assume the person leaving the driver side of a car is the owner in this type of situation.

[st.cronin]

They got tickets through normal means, a republican politician even, they passed security screenings. In my mind, in any ways this was private, they forfilled their end of a contract. If they broke the contract by disturbing the peace, then you give them the boot. But you don't say, oh we THINK you will break the contract between us, the ones in charge of this event, and you the participants, so we are throwing you out. I am not sure if I would call it illegal or unconstitutional, but one thing is for sure, it is bullshit.

I can agree with most of that. But reading between the lines of the story, it sure sounds like they were out to raise some heck, not participate in the event the way it was designed.

[sabotai]

If it requires a ticket...it's private.

LOL, no.

If I pay for tickets to an event held in a private building, it's private. For instance, I'm considering go to see Big bad Voodoo Daddy at the Borgata at the end of April. The Borgata is a privately owned building and I have to pay money for the tickets. In the case of story, it was held in a public building and the event was funded by taxpayers, not ticket buyers. You don't get more clear-cut "public forum" than that.

Edit: YES! Timestamp bug!

[VPI97]

Good thing this wasn't a private forum then.

(Hint: If it's a "town hall forum" paid for by taxpayers, it ain't private) If it requires a ticket...it's private.

[VPI97]

First of all, I doubt that. Freedom of Speech applies throughout the entire country.

Secondly, it's true the President used taxpayer's money to set up a "private event". That's, uh, great.... I don't think you understand the First Amendment.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't think you understand the First Amendment.

Ditto.

[Arles]

They got tickets through normal means, a republican politician even, they passed security screenings. In my mind, in any ways this was private, they forfilled their end of a contract. If they broke the contract by disturbing the peace, then you give them the boot. But you don't say, oh we THINK you will break the contract between us, the ones in charge of this event, and you the participants, so we are throwing you out. I am not sure if I would call it illegal or unconstitutional, but one thing is for sure, it is bullshit.
OK, just because you pass the screening doesn't mean people can't remove you if more information comes into their possession later in the process.

What you are saying is that if someone snuck into the Democratic convention with a T-Shirt underneath saying "John Kerry likes to have sex with goats" and *could be* planning to storm the stage with that shirt on that no one could remove that person once they passed the security screening. That's just silly. The security would have every right to remove that person from the event once it saw the T-Shirt.

[flere-imsaho]

By the way, anyone still believe George Bush wants an "open debate" on Social Security?

[Arles]

By the way, anyone still believe George Bush wants an "open debate" on Social Security?
Right back at you, does anyone belief these protesters wanted to have an "open debate" with George Bush?

The story fails to mention the fact that there were many people unsure or against the president's plan that showed up to the event and asked questions. They just didn't have hidden agendas and T-Shirts with a plan to disrupt the situation.

But, I guess in some ways people here may have preferred seeing three kooks run out on stage with "Stop the Lies" T-Shirts than actually have a real debate on social security policy. Heaven forbid we avoid a knee jerk reaction to the issue of social security and actually have a civil debate on the issue.

[flere-imsaho]

By the way, from Daily Kos, the (of course), liberal blog, a letter from the 3 in question:


Very rarely does the everyday public get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in a normally-secret Bush Administration.
But Monday, March 28, the Secret Service called three everyday people into their offices to discuss why we were kicked out of a presidential event in Denver last week where Bush promoted his plan to privatize Social Security. What they revealed to us and our lawyer was fascinating.

There we were - three people who had personally picked up tickets from Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez's office and went to a presidential event. But as we entered, we were told that we had been "ID'ed" and were warned that any disruption would get us arrested.

After being seated in the audience we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. We were shocked when told that this presidential event was a "private event" and were commanded to leave.

More astonishingly, when the Secret Service was contacted the next day they agreed to meet with us this Monday, March 28 to discuss the circumstances surrounding our removal. We had two big questions going into this meeting:


How is the Bush Administration "ID'ing" citizens before presidential events?

Why was an official taxpayer-funded event called a "private event" - leading to citizens being kicked out?

Most shocking of all, we got answers to both questions.
The Secret Service revealed that we were "ID'ed" when local Republican staffers saw a bumper sticker on the car we drove which said "No More Blood For Oil." Evidently, the free speech expressed on one bumper sticker is cause enough to eject three citizens from a presidential event. (Similarly, someone was ejected from Bush's Social Security privatization event in Arizona the same day simply for wearing a Democratic t-shirt.)

The Secret Service also revealed that ticket distribution and staffing of the Social Security event was run by the local Republican Party. They wanted us to be clear that it was a Republican staffer - not the Secret Service - who kicked us out of the presidential event. But this revealed something else that should be startling to all Americans.

After allowing taxpayers to finance his privatization events (let's call them what they really are after all,) and after using the White House communications apparatus to set them up, Bush is privatizing the ticket distribution and security staffing at his events to the Republican Party. The losers are not just taxpayers, but anyone who values the First Amendment. Under the banner of a "private event" the Republican Party is excluding citizens from seeing their president because of the lone sin of expressing the wrong idea on a bumper sticker or t-shirt. The question for Americans is - will we allow our freedom to be privatized?

Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise. Alexander Young
Denver residents

[sabotai]

But, I guess in some ways people here may have preferred seeing three kooks run out on stage with "Stop the Lies" T-Shirts than actually have a real debate on social security policy.

It would have at least been entertaining.... ;)

[flere-imsaho]

Right back at you, does anyone belief these protesters wanted to have an "open debate" with George Bush?

Hey, so two wrongs make a right? Groovy.

But, I guess in some ways people here may have preferred seeing three kooks run out on stage with "Stop the Lies" T-Shirts than actually have a real debate on social security policy. Heaven forbid we avoid a knee jerk reaction to the issue of social security and actually have a civil debate on the issue.

Well, on the evidence of Bush's Social Security Tour so far, there's no indication he's willing to listen to alternatives, so I'd say the potential for a full debate that explored all the options wasn't going to happen anyway.

[SunDevil]

From one of the individuals who were kicked out.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/29/113651/512

Very rarely does the everyday public get a glimpse of what happens behind the scenes in a normally-secret Bush Administration.

But Monday, March 28, the Secret Service called three everyday people into their offices to discuss why we were kicked out of a presidential event in Denver last week where Bush promoted his plan to privatize Social Security. What they revealed to us and our lawyer was fascinating.

There we were - three people who had personally picked up tickets from Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez's office and went to a presidential event. But as we entered, we were told that we had been "ID'ed" and were warned that any disruption would get us arrested.

After being seated in the audience we were forcibly removed before the President arrived, even though we had not been disruptive. We were shocked when told that this presidential event was a "private event" and were commanded to leave.

More astonishingly, when the Secret Service was contacted the next day they agreed to meet with us this Monday, March 28 to discuss the circumstances surrounding our removal. We had two big questions going into this meeting:

1. How is the Bush Administration "ID'ing" citizens before presidential events?

2. Why was an official taxpayer-funded event called a "private event" - leading to citizens being kicked out?

Most shocking of all, we got answers to both questions.

The Secret Service revealed that we were "ID'ed" when local Republican staffers saw a bumper sticker on the car we drove which said "No More Blood For Oil." Evidently, the free speech expressed on one bumper sticker is cause enough to eject three citizens from a presidential event. (Similarly, someone was ejected from Bush's Social Security privatization event in Arizona the same day simply for wearing a Democratic t-shirt.)

The Secret Service also revealed that ticket distribution and staffing of the Social Security event was run by the local Republican Party. They wanted us to be clear that it was a Republican staffer - not the Secret Service - who kicked us out of the presidential event. But this revealed something else that should be startling to all Americans.

After allowing taxpayers to finance his privatization events (let's call them what they really are after all,) and after using the White House communications apparatus to set them up, Bush is privatizing the ticket distribution and security staffing at his events to the Republican Party. The losers are not just taxpayers, but anyone who values the First Amendment. Under the banner of a "private event" the Republican Party is excluding citizens from seeing their president because of the lone sin of expressing the wrong idea on a bumper sticker or t-shirt. The question for Americans is - will we allow our freedom to be privatized?

Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise. Alexander Young
Denver residents

[dawgfan]

If Dissent equals some crackjob planning to disrupt the event with hidden T-Shirts, then - No, I don't believe they have "a right" to be in there. To be fair, if some pro-Life kooks wanted to enter a Stem cell discussion with T-Shirts saying "Using Stem Cells = Baby killers" then I would have no problem with the organizers not allowing those people in either.

So wearing a politically motivated T-shirt under ones outer clothing equals crackjob and extremist in your view? :rolleyes:

Had they enacted some kind of protest in the middle of the event to disrupt it, I'd have no problem with them being ejected. It's the idea that someone presumes guilt ahead of time that galls me. Maybe they would've done something, maybe they would've just sat there stewing but not done anything - we don't know. People have a right to express their views in public so long as they're not dangerous (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). A T-shirt that says "Stop the Lies" hardly qualifies as dangerous speech that needs to be muffled.

Just because they don't catch the person when he enters does not mean they can't remove that person later if new information comes into their hands. What your saying if I frisk someone and don't see that they have a weapon, but let them in, they get free reign without fear of being removed. Again, perhaps someone saw their shirts underneath or cross-checked the plates on their "friend's" car.

You miss my point. They were obviously not removed for "security" reasons if they'd already made it through the security checkpoint. Unless I'm missing something from the article, they presented no physical threat to the President. If security were the reasons for the ejection, the guards (whoever they worked for) could've done an additional check, yet they didn't. This was obviously a reaction to prevent any kind of disruption of the event.

[flere-imsaho]

If Dissent equals some crackjob planning to disrupt the event with hidden T-Shirts, then - No, I don't believe they have "a right" to be in there. To be fair, if some pro-Life kooks wanted to enter a Stem cell discussion with T-Shirts saying "Using Stem Cells = Baby killers" then I would have no problem with the organizers not allowing those people in either.

What if they just planned to sit in the audience and, if presented the opportunity, ask pointed questions in a civilized manner?

Point is - neither you nor the Republican staffers, who got the Secret Service to remove them, knew what they had planned. They just made an assumption, and had them removed. That's wrong.

[Klinglerware]

I can agree with most of that. But reading between the lines of the story, it sure sounds like they were out to raise some heck, not participate in the event the way it was designed.

Yeah, there's a good chance that could have happened--but how would anyone know for certain? The people who got kicked out did say that they more or less chickened out of doing anything really disruptive.

As far as the "participate in the event the way it was designed part", I think I can agree that first amendment issues don't come into play here since it was a sham "public event", that was a de-facto tightly-controlled PR event (though at tax-payers' expense). I guess this incident is forcing the administration to be more honest as to what this "national debate on social security" is really all about...

[Arles]

By the way, from Daily Kos, the (of course), liberal blog, a letter from the 3 in question:
I'm just curious if people here would have had a problem with the removal of someone at the presidential debate town hall meeting that had a shirt hidden under their outfit saying "Democrats are baby killers" once it had been determined they were wearing that shirt.

I certainly wouldn't have. But, hey, maybe I'm in the minority.

[dumbloserme]

I don't post here too often, but I have to chime in on this one. I take it most of you here are sports fans who heckle opposing teams and refs, etc. etc. Now if they took that out of sports, it wouldn't be any fun.

What happened to political dissent? What happened to voicing your opinion to the people that matter most? If I don't like a call I'm gonna yell and scream and all that. If I don't like what the President does I should be able to tell him that too. These are principles our country was founded upon. If you don't like something, speak up. You don't get a free pass because you hold office, you should be listening to each and every person that you hold power over.

Next time something happens you don't like, try to suck it up and not mention it to anybody. Don't complain, don't call customer service. Just pretend it doesn't matter. In effect that's what some of you are saying. Just shut your mouth because the otherside doesn't want to hear it. The President is just a man, if I want to tell him to fuck off, I should damn well be able to do it.

[dawgfan]

OK, just because you pass the screening doesn't mean people can't remove you if more information comes into their possession later in the process.

Sure. But I think the information should be something more substantial than simple political motivation as this obviously was. If their car had contained guns or weapons or some other obvious potential threat, this line of thinking makes sense. But simply because they had a bumper sticker that said "No More Blood for Oil"?

What you are saying is that if someone snuck into the Democratic convention with a T-Shirt underneath saying "John Kerry likes to have sex with goats" and *could be* planning to storm the stage with that shirt on that no one could remove that person once they passed the security screening. That's just silly. The security would have every right to remove that person from the event once it saw the T-Shirt.

You've got to be fucking kidding me - a T-shirt (not even visible) that says "Stop the Lies" is equivalent to one that says ""John Kerry likes to have sex with goats"? You've gone off the partisan deep end Arlie. And what's with the assumption that these people were going to storm the stage?

[dawgfan]

Not because they disagree with the President, but instead intentionally setting up a heckling situation. They could easily shown their displeasure to the President by dressing normally and asking question during the town hall. This group was one of the groups that stormed into the Republican National Convention and disrupted the speakers.

They did dress normally - the t-shirts were not visible, and they were attired in business outfits. Should you be denied entrance to an event because someone doesn't like what your t-shirt says that's underneath another shirt or a sweater and isn't visible? And there's no proof that I've seen that these 3 were members of the group you are talking about.

[Arles]

So wearing a politically motivated T-shirt under ones outer clothing equals crackjob and extremist in your view? :rolleyes:
If you show up to show your dissent at a presidential Q&A with a T-Shirt like that, then I would say your pretty "extreme". I think most people would respect the intent of the event enough to keep that stuff outside.

Had they enacted some kind of protest in the middle of the event to disrupt it, I'd have no problem with them being ejected.
It would have been too late at that point. Again, what your saying is akin to stating "Well, we can't remove that guy with the knife on the plane until he actually kills someone". There's nothing wrong with handlers for an event making an educated judgement on removing someone that *may* end up disrupting the event. If you are "security person X", what other reason would a person walk into a presidential town hall with a hidden shirt saying "Stop the Lies" if they were not planning on disrupting it?

It's not like these people simply had a button saying "democrat". They had an outfit that, to the eyes of most objective people, was probably there with the intent to disrupt.



You miss my point. They were obviously not removed for "security" reasons if they'd already made it through the security checkpoint.
So, the potential of having some kook rush the stage with a "stop the lies" shirt isn't a security risk for the president?

I'm guessing your reply will be that the event holders should have been able to tell that person's intent and the they really didn't intend on disrupting desipte the fact that their attire seemed worn for one obvious reason.

[VPI97]

If I pay for tickets to an event held in a private building, it's private. For instance, I'm considering go to see Big bad Voodoo Daddy at the Borgata at the end of April. The Borgata is a privately owned building and I have to pay money for the tickets. In the case of story, it was held in a public building and the event was funded by taxpayers, not ticket buyers. You don't get more clear-cut "public forum" than that. Payment & location makes no difference. As long as there is a stated requirement for admittance, the event is considered private. I'm willing to bet that the tickets also had the standard small print verbage that specifically allows for the event to remove people...but of course, you won't see that fact in the article.

[dawgfan]

Well, other than plan to disrupt the event (or did you forget about the t-shirts?)

You mean the t-shirts that weren't visible? Maybe they would've disrupted the event, maybe they woudn't have.

Sorry, if you're expecting sympathy for the sacks of shit, you're going to have to find it somewhere other than me.

Wow, that's a big surprise. You've never ceased to express how little you care for many of the civil liberties that make this country great.

[Arles]

What if they just planned to sit in the audience and, if presented the opportunity, ask pointed questions in a civilized manner?
The they should have dressed in a civilized manner and not worn hidden political tripe. No one can know if their intent was to storm the stage with their shirts or behave as your described. But to "trust" them until they rush the stage given their attire seems a little pollyannish.

[Tigercat]

OK, just because you pass the screening doesn't mean people can't remove you if more information comes into their possession later in the process.

What you are saying is that if someone snuck into the Democratic convention with a T-Shirt underneath saying "John Kerry likes to have sex with goats" and *could be* planning to storm the stage with that shirt on that no one could remove that person once they passed the security screening. That's just silly. The security would have every right to remove that person from the event once it saw the T-Shirt.

I have varying levels of not liking this action, but it comes to a head in the manner in which they removed these people. When you let them in after inspection, you are basically agreeing to something. In an event like this is an agreement saying "OK this deal, with you being participants, is set. As long as you follow the rules." One shouldn't back out of that agreement unless something changes. The action of these people didn't change. I would have less of a problem, but still have one to a different degree, with this if it was handled differently. If you are gonna screen like this, screen at the door at the latest. Don't decide you don't like someone when they are already going towards their seat with ticket in hand, thats going against a contract thats already agreed to by both parties, and one that the other party hasn't broken yet.

[sabotai]

Payment & location makes no difference. As long as there is a stated requirement for admittance, the event is considered private.

Just because a ticket is required does not mean it's private. Tickets are distributed for public events all of time due to finiate space for people attending. They only admit so many people into the building/room/etc., and distributing tickets is one way of handling it (Another is just "first come, first serve"). Because they decided to issue tickets to handle the situation does not automatically make it a private event.

[Arles]

You've got to be fucking kidding me - a T-shirt (not even visible) that says "Stop the Lies" is equivalent to one that says ""John Kerry likes to have sex with goats"? You've gone off the partisan deep end Arlie.
If both shirts were not visible by the naked eye, the principle is the same. It seems you are saying it's OK to kick out a person with a hidden T-Shirt saying "John Kerry likes to have sex with goats" but not OK to kick out someone that has a hidden shirt saying "Stop the Lies".

Are you saying that the message on the shirt is the determination as to whom gets kicked out and who stays? If so, that tends to fly in the face of your free speach argument.

And what's with the assumption that these people were going to storm the stage?
So, you are assuming that a group of people would go through the owrk to obtain tickets to an event with the president and smuggle in shirts underneath that say "Stop the Lies" - only to sit quietly with their shirts hidden the entire event? That's the assumption you feel comfortable making?

[Klinglerware]

The they should have dressed in a civilized manner and not worn hidden political tripe.

Do you have x-ray vision?

The shirts are less of an issue to me here, since nobody knew about them or could have known about them except the wearers who mentioned it post-incident (and decided not to do anything with the shirts once they got to the event).

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I think we all learned a lesson here. If you're going to go see the president, put a bumper sticker on your car that says: BLOOD FOR OIL!

[dawgfan]

It would have been too late at that point. Again, what your saying is akin to stating "Well, we can't remove that guy with the knife on the plane until he actually kills someone".

Arlie, I can't believe you're trying to compare the potential for murder with the potential to disrupt a public event. The two things aren't even in the same ballpark.

There's nothing wrong with handlers for an event making an educated judgement on removing someone that *may* end up disrupting the event. If you are "security person X", what other reason would a person walk into a presidential town hall with a hidden shirt saying "Stop the Lies" if they were not planning on disrupting it?

You keep forgetting they weren't kicked out for the t-shirts - they were kicked out for a bumper sticker. Were they originally planning on doing something to draw attention to themselves? Yep, as they admitted. They also claim they had decided not to do so by the time they arrived. You obviously don't believe them, but the t-shirts are ultimately irrelevent to this action, as they didn't play a part in the decision.

It's not like these people simply had a button saying "democrat". They had an outfit that, to the eyes of most objective people, was probably there with the intent to disrupt.

They were wearing business attire Arlie, with political t-shirts on underneath that were not visible.

So, the potential of having some kook rush the stage with a "stop the lies" shirt isn't a security risk for the president?

Not really. Do you seriously think any of these people, even if you assume they intended to rush the stage, would've gotten anywhere near the President? The Secret Service would've been on them immediately.

I'm guessing your reply will be that the event holders should have been able to tell that person's intent and the they really didn't intend on disrupting desipte the fact that their attire seemed worn for one obvious reason.

As you can see, that's not my response at all. My attitude is, there doesn't appear to have been any security risk to the President, and while a protest in such a setting is poor manners, it was a public setting and people shouldn't have been ejected simply on the assumption that such a protest might have happened based on a bumper sticker on a car.

[Arles]

I have varying levels of not liking this action, but it comes to a head in the manner in which they removed these people. When you let them in after inspection, you are basically agreeing to something. In an event like this is an agreement saying "OK this deal, with you being participants, is set. As long as you follow the rules." One shouldn't back out of that agreement unless something changes. The action of these people didn't change. I would have less of a problem, but still have one to a different degree, with this if it was handled differently. If you are gonna screen like this, screen at the door at the latest. Don't decide you don't like someone when they are already going towards their seat with ticket in hand, thats going against a contract thats already agreed to by both parties, and one that the other party hasn't broken yet.
What if the person didn't see the shirt until later? Is it not OK then because they weren't observant to notice the hidden shirt when the person entered?

[Klinglerware]

From the story:



Recht said the T-shirts did not play a role in the group's removal.

[dawgfan]

If both shirts were not visible by the naked eye, the principle is the same. It seems you are saying it's OK to kick out a person with a hidden T-Shirt saying "John Kerry likes to have sex with goats" but not OK to kick out someone that has a hidden shirt saying "Stop the Lies".

Are you saying that the message on the shirt is the determination as to whom gets kicked out and who stays? If so, that tends to fly in the face of your free speach argument.

That's not what I'm saying at all - I'm simply pointing out that your analogy shows your lack of objectivity in this debate if you compare "Stop the Lies" with "John Kerry likes to have sex with goats". Neither one is grounds for expulsion by itself, but the content of the shirt does matter - if someone were wearing something that said "Kill the President", that would qualify for reasonable grounds for expulsion.

So, you are assuming that a group of people would go through the owrk to obtain tickets to an event with the president and smuggle in shirts underneath that say "Stop the Lies" - only to sit quietly with their shirts hidden the entire event? That's the assumption you feel comfortable making?

I think it's far more likely that if they'd decided to carry out their protest, it would've consisted of removing their outer business wear to reveal their t-shirts while standing up and shouting some kind of slogan. Rushing the stage is a completely paranoid assumption, and in any event they never would've gotten close to the stage to do so - the Secret Service would've stopped them well short of any potential harm to the President.

[Arles]

Again, I don't see the big deal with people being screened and/or removed from presidential events if they are deemed to be potentially destructive. The purpose of a town-hall meeting is not to allow 20 "protestors" to chant slogans and disrupt the debate. The purpose was to have civil people ask legitimate questions about the president's program. There is always a spot across the street for protestors.

[flere-imsaho]

I give up. The terrorists have won. They've clearly convinced too many Americans that the threat posed by political T-Shirts merits the removal of First Amendment rights.

[flere-imsaho]

The purpose was to have civil people ask legitimate questions about the president's program. There is always a spot across the street for protestors.

No, the purpose of these particular meetings is to convince people to support the President's (flawed) Social Security plan.

[Arles]

I give up. The terrorists have won. They've clearly convinced too many Americans that the threat posed by political T-Shirts merits the removal of First Amendment rights.
No kidding, heaven forbid we try to keep debates actually focused on issues instead of allowing every protest robot into each federally-funded event. Man, what a trajedy :rolleyes:

What I find the most ironic about all this is how everyone seems upset that the people running this event actually pegged three potential disrupters using outside information. I mean, everyone would have had a much better case if these three did not have on these crazy T-Shirts or had actually spoken at length before the event about a plan to disrupt it. Unfortunately, the handlers in the event were correct in their assumptions and that has taken the thunder from this story.

[Arles]

No, the purpose of these particular meetings is to convince people to support the President's (flawed) Social Security plan.
And what was the point of Clinton's many town-halls? Give me a break. Your outrage is as hypocritical as it is laughable.

[rexallllsc]

I'm just curious if people here would have had a problem with the removal of someone at the presidential debate town hall meeting that had a shirt hidden under their outfit saying "Democrats are baby killers" once it had been determined they were wearing that shirt.

I certainly wouldn't have. But, hey, maybe I'm in the minority.

We can deal with endless hypothaticals if we choose to. Let's stay on topic.

[Arles]

Thats exactly my point, screening like this shouldn't continue after the they are at their seats.
You sure about that? If that's the case, why even have secret service in the building after everyone is seated?

[Tigercat]

What if the person didn't see the shirt until later? Is it not OK then because they weren't observant to notice the hidden shirt when the person entered?

Thats exactly my point, screening like this shouldn't continue after the they are at their seats. IMO, it is close to reversing a sale after the exchange. Now when they start doing something disruptive, such as heckling or maybe even dramatically showing off their shirts that were once conceled, one could make a case that any agreement was broken because they were being disruptive. But to just assume that someone else is gonna break their agreement and break it yourself before they have a chance is messed up.

[flere-imsaho]

No kidding, heaven forbid we try to keep debates actually focused on issues instead of allowing every protest robot into each federally-funded event. Man, what a trajedy :rolleyes:

Given the lack of balanced viewpoints in Bush's Social Security Town Halls to date, one could argue that the presence of protestors would actually make these "debates" more evenly focused on the issues at hand.

Of course, Bush knows all, right? :rolleyes:

[rexallllsc]

Again, I don't see the big deal with people being screened and/or removed from presidential events if they are deemed to be potentially destructive. The purpose of a town-hall meeting is not to allow 20 "protestors" to chant slogans and disrupt the debate. The purpose was to have civil people ask legitimate questions about the president's program. There is always a spot across the street for protestors.

Who the hell said they should be able to disrupt the and chant throughout the meeting? I think most would be in favor of having them removed if they were causing a scene. But let's stick to the facts.

[flere-imsaho]

And what was the point of Clinton's many town-halls? Give me a break. Your outrage is as hypocritical as it is laughable.

What relevance does that have? Besides, I don't remember Clinton's Secret Service removing people from those town halls.

Your partisanship astounds me.

[Arles]

Given the lack of balanced viewpoints in Bush's Social Security Town Halls to date, one could argue that the presence of protestors would actually make these "debates" more evenly focused on the issues at hand.

Of course, Bush knows all, right? :rolleyes:
I actually don't agree with all of Bush's Social Security plan. But I fail to see how my ideas and others in dissent get into the debate by robotic chants and protests. I'd much rather prefer people put their focus on asking pointed questions and enagage in debate instead of restracting from the debate to demonize one side.

[Arles]

Who the hell said they should be able to disrupt the and chant throughout the meeting? I think most would be in favor of having them removed if they were causing a scene. But let's stick to the facts.
So, to summarize, handlers for the president have no right to remove people they feel could potentially be a distraction to a town-hall debate? There is no "right" to attend these events. If I was a handler for the president I wouldn't want people with a high chance of disrupting this event in the same manner that Clinton's handlers didn't want wacky rightys chanting "Monica" slogans in his town halls. Where is the crime in this?

Again, there has been no mention of the numerous people that opposed the president's plan but were allowed to not only enter the town hall, but also ask questions. Instead, all this focus is on three people who, given the circumstance, were probably there with the intent to disrupt the event.

[Arles]

As you can see, that's not my response at all. My attitude is, there doesn't appear to have been any security risk to the President, and while a protest in such a setting is poor manners, it was a public setting
You're making it seem like this was some public event held in a park and these people were asked to leave. This was a privately ticketed town hall meetings that obviously gave the organizers the ability to admit whomever they choose. You or I could not have run down to this event and walked in without a ticket.

If these people wanted to kick out some guy because he was picking his nose, they would not be "violating his free speech". Maybe that's where this discrepancy lies in this thread.

[rexallllsc]

So, to summarize, handlers for the president have no right to remove people they feel could potentially be a distraction to a town-hall debate? There is no "right" to attend these events. If I was a handler for the president I wouldn't want people with a high chance of disrupting this event in the same manner that Clinton's handlers didn't want wacky rightys chanting "Monica" slogans in his town halls. Where is the crime in this?


First off, I don't know why you bring up Clinton as if I'm some kind of staunch Clinton defender.

Second, I don't think people should be disrupting the event. I think if they do, they should be removed.

What bothers me is that this seems to be the MO for this adminstration...and sadly, our guv'ment these days.

PS - the whole "...right to remove people they feel could potentially..." line is really depressing. So next time a cop sees me (a cop who once arrested me for getting in a fight) he should be able to put me in jail because he thing I "could potentially" get into another fight?

Sick.

[Arles]

First off, I don't know why you bring up Clinton as if I'm some kind of staunch Clinton defender.

Second, I don't think people should be disrupting the event. I think if they do, they should be removed.

What bothers me is that this seems to be the MO for this adminstration...and sadly, our guv'ment these days.
Replace "these days" with "the past 30 years" and you would be more accurate. Screening and removing potentially disruptive people in presidential events was hardly a process started by Bush or Clinton.

PS - the whole "...right to remove people they feel could potentially..." line is really depressing. So next time a cop sees me (a cop who once arrested me for getting in a fight) he should be able to put me in jail because he thing I "could potentially" get into another fight?

Sick.
Weren't you the guy that asked that we quit the endless hypotheticals? Comparing the overseeing process of a presidential event with you walking down the street isn't quite on the same level. And it's not like these people were arrested either, so your anology isn't even in the same universe. Being asked to leave a privately ticketed event isn't the same as being put in jail while walking the street.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You've never ceased to express how little you care for many of the civil liberties that make this country great.

No, I've never ceased to express how much contempt I have for pieces of shit like the ones described in this thread. I've never made any bones about it at all -- If they vanished tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eyelash ... but I'd sleep better & feel a lot better about the future of this country.

[dawgfan]

You're making it seem like this was some public event held in a park and these people were asked to leave. This was a privately ticketed town hall meetings that obviously gave the organizers the ability to admit whomever they choose. You or I could not have run down to this event and walked in without a ticket.

If these people wanted to kick out some guy because he was picking his nose, they would not be "violating his free speech". Maybe that's where this discrepancy lies in this thread.

This was not a private fund-raiser, this was a "town hall meeting on Social Security" held in the Wings over the Rockies museum. I don't know if the tickets were simply for crowd control purposes or whether there was actually a cost associated with them, but if there was no cost involved this was by all means a "public event".

I'm not a big fan of political disruptions of public events, but the while they are annoying, they are also valid free speech and a means to express political dissent. Preventing people from attending an event on a suspiscion they might cause a disturbance is disturbing attitude to take in a country that (used to at least) prides itself on its civil liberties.

[Tigercat]

No, I've never ceased to express how much contempt I have for pieces of shit like the ones described in this thread. I've never made any bones about it at all -- If they vanished tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eyelash ... but I'd sleep better & feel a lot better about the future of this country.

Your loved ones would be proud of such contempt for your fellow man.

[dawgfan]

No, I've never ceased to express how much contempt I have for pieces of shit like the ones described in this thread. I've never made any bones about it at all -- If they vanished tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eyelash ... but I'd sleep better & feel a lot better about the future of this country.

Right, because this country is all about a few civil liberties you approve of and fuck all the rest of the ones that inconvenience you.

To be honest Jon, I'd feel a whole lot better about the future of this country if narrow-minded reactionaries like you vanished tomorrow.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Your loved ones would be proud of such contempt for your fellow man.

Actually, they're kinda split on the matter, not quite half & half.
I actually came from a fairly long line of Demoncrats, but luckily I overcame that.
Now, as a bit of weakness I try not to display very often, I limit myself to doing everything I can to discourage them from getting anywhere near a ballot box.

[JonInMiddleGA]

To be honest Jon, I'd feel a whole lot better about the future of this country if narrow-minded reactionaries like you vanished tomorrow.

Back atcha buddy, prolly not a good idea for us to ever go hunting together.

[Arles]

This was not a private fund-raiser
I didn't say it was a private fund raiser.

I don't know if the tickets were simply for crowd control purposes or whether there was actually a cost associated with them, but if there was no cost involved this was by all means a "public event".
Given the fact that you had to get them from a congressman (as is the case with most of these events), I don't see how "public" that is. Again, this was not some parade through the park. This was an event where you had to receive tickets from a certain source in order to attend. You or I could not have just gone up to the Museum a week before the event and gotten tickets as would have been the case if this was just for "crowd control".

Also, cost does not determine whether an event is held in a public domain.

I'm not a big fan of political disruptions of public events, but the while they are annoying, they are also valid free speech and a means to express political dissent.
Bush did not stop out in some park and make a speech like a "public event". This was closed-ticketed event run based on public funds. Think of it more like the presedential debates than a stump speech in the streets of Des Moines.

Arlie

[dawgfan]

Back atcha buddy, prolly not a good idea for us to ever go hunting together.

What, you'd kill me because you don't agree with my political views? I wish I could say that surprises me, but it doesn't. Contemptable Jon, contemptable and pathetic.

I hope someday you can overcome your immense hatred and become human again.

[Tigercat]

Actually, they're kinda split on the matter, not quite half & half.
I actually came from a fairly long line of Demoncrats, but luckily I overcame that.
Now, as a bit of weakness I try not to display very often, I limit myself to doing everything I can to discourage them from getting anywhere near a ballot box.

I figured either they would be proud and I could be right, or they wouldn't be proud and I could pass it off as sarcasm. Wouldn't it be the case that they are split and I am wrong on both accounts. damnit.

[rexallllsc]

Weren't you the guy that asked that we quit the endless hypotheticals? Comparing the overseeing process of a presidential event with you walking down the street isn't quite on the same level. And it's not like these people were arrested either, so your anology isn't even in the same universe. Being asked to leave a privately ticketed event isn't the same as being put in jail while walking the street.

Yeah, mine was legitimate, though (as opposed to the "Clinton got a blowjob!" rhetoric). It's the same kind of profiling.

Hey, if you're happy with being targeted and removed or whatever simply because of who you're with, or what people "fee" you could "potentially" do, I don't even know what to say.

Oh wait, yes I do: This country is FUCKED because of the idiots who have taken power, and the sheep who follow them and parrot their doctrines are complicit in this.

[JonInMiddleGA]

What, you'd kill me because you don't agree with my political views? I wish I could say that surprises me, but it doesn't.

LMAO, typical liberal doubletalk, just beautiful in its predictable.

You just singled me out for "vanishing" ... and I'm suddenly the one with the killing streak? That pure Mastercard ... priceless.

The most contemptable in this thread are you & the rest of the liberals who defend the idiotic "Blood for oil" crowd. You'd be comic relief if you didn't encourage & support the enemies of the nation, but under those circumstances you have to be taken somewhat seriously. With all the utter & complete contempt you so richly deserve, but seriously nonetheless.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wouldn't it be the case that they are split and I am wrong on both accounts. damnit.

What can I tell you, some days you just can't win.

[dawgfan]

LMAO, typical liberal doubletalk, just beautiful in its predictable.

You just singled me out for "vanishing" ... and I'm suddenly the one with the killing streak? That pure Mastercard ... priceless.

Except there's no hypocrisy there. I didn't imply killing, you did. I simply said vanish. You took it to murder. Big difference for those that can see clearly.

The most contemptable in this thread are you & the rest of the liberals who defend the idiotic "Blood for oil" crowd. You'd be comic relief if you didn't encourage & support the enemies of the nation, but under those circumstances you have to be taken somewhat seriously. With all the utter & complete contempt you so richly deserve, but seriously nonetheless.

Ah yes, the old paranoid mantra about how we're just a step away from traitors, aiding and abetting the enemy because we have the temerity to not blindly accept the bullshit our government tries to pile on us.

Keep spouting your ravings Jon - it makes it clear to everyone what you are.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Back atcha buddy, prolly not a good idea for us to ever go hunting together.

I'm just curoius, what would you expect someone to infer from a statement such as this?

I also love the argument that liberals "encourage and support" the enemies of this country because they don't see eye to eye with some of the administration's decision. Couldn't an argument be made that Republicans are helping the enemy's cause by further restricting the freedoms this country was founded on, in instances such as this one? It would be a stupid and foolish claim to make, but so is insinuating that liberals want our enemies to succeed and prosper.

[JPhillips]

The test for this is simple.

Would Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly et al go apeshit over Clinton's political hacks using the secret service to remove Republicans from taxpayer financed events?

[Blackadar]

No, I've never ceased to express how much contempt I have for pieces of shit like the ones described in this thread. I've never made any bones about it at all -- If they vanished tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eyelash ... but I'd sleep better & feel a lot better about the future of this country.

Without us pieces of shit, you wouldn't have a country to live in.

It's funny Jon. You seem to love spouting off about restricting others' liberties - that it's ok for Government to crush a group under its heel - as long as you disagree with the group's position.

But what happens when the Government finally wants to crush something you hold dear? What happens when your liberties and positions are finally under jeporady? There won't be anyone left to defend you, buckaroo.

You are pitiful.

[Blackadar]

LMAO, typical liberal doubletalk, just beautiful in its predictable.

You just singled me out for "vanishing" ... and I'm suddenly the one with the killing streak? That pure Mastercard ... priceless.

The most contemptable in this thread are you & the rest of the liberals who defend the idiotic "Blood for oil" crowd. You'd be comic relief if you didn't encourage & support the enemies of the nation, but under those circumstances you have to be taken somewhat seriously. With all the utter & complete contempt you so richly deserve, but seriously nonetheless.

No Jon, we support the right for someone to have their "blood for oil" rhetoric heard. Big difference - and one you keep forgetting.

And yes, your post above is a thinly-veiled thread regarding the killing of another. You talk a good game, but in real life everyone knows you're nothing but a coward.

[Loki]

Maybe instead of complaining about everything, the liberals should have gotten more votes for Kerry.

[flere-imsaho]

Maybe instead of complaining about everything, the liberals should have gotten more votes for Kerry.

Maybe the Republicans shouldn't have voted for a moron.

[rexallllsc]

Maybe instead of complaining about everything, the liberals should have gotten more votes for Kerry.

How do you get more votes for someone?

PS - I didn't vote for Kerry.

[Flasch186]

ive backed out of the discussion...this seems so cut and dri that its not even debatable. Now everone is just slapping eachother strictly based on party lines....when there isnt a way that this should be acceptable in a free society, g'nigh.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I like the British system better, where the PM is periodically required to speak in front of, and take questions from, an audience that boos and heckles him. What do they call that again.. Oh yeah, parliament.

[duckman]

Maybe the Republicans shouldn't have voted for a moron.
Just because you disagree with the direction he's taken with this country doesn't make him an idiot. Start practicing what you preach.

[Mr. Wednesday]

This is the sort of thing I expect to see in some banana republic or tin pot dictatorship, not the United States. If they've got that much to fear from opposing viewpoints, maybe they should rethink what they're trying to do.

[st.cronin]

Maybe the Republicans shouldn't have voted for a moron.

One of the lamest things the far left does is try to label Bush a moron. He may not have the intellectual gravitas of Newt Gingrich or Bill Bradley, but he's got an MBA from HARVARD. He's not a moron, folks.

[st.cronin]

This is the sort of thing I expect to see in some banana republic or tin pot dictatorship, not the United States. If they've got that much to fear from opposing viewpoints, maybe they should rethink what they're trying to do.

Actually, in a tin pot dictatorship these people would have been jailed and/or executed. Judging from how easily they've had their pov picked up by media and the net, to suggest that they've been repressed is preposterous.

[Mr. Wednesday]

That's true, but I'd prefer that it hadn't gotten this far.

[rexallllsc]

Actually, in a tin pot dictatorship these people would have been jailed and/or executed. Judging from how easily they've had their pov picked up by media and the net, to suggest that they've been repressed is preposterous.

"USA - We don't kill dissenters here!"

[BigJohn&TheLions]

How do you get more votes for someone?

PS - I didn't vote for Kerry.
It's simple really. Computer vote fraud. You take a voting precinct that has, let's say, 463 registered voters. Then you add a vote there, maybe a vote there. When the final results come out there may be 2,600 votes or so that come from that precinct for your candidate alone. If anyone questions the numbers, you blame it on a new voting system and chalk it up as a mistake that you don't know how it happened, but it didn't change the outcome anyway. Next time you'll get it right...

[Arles]

No Jon, we support the right for someone to have their "blood for oil" rhetoric heard.
See, this is what I don't get. The "blood for oil" crowd is no different than extremists on the right that are "white supremacists" or call the left "baby killers".

These are fringe groups that left the arena of debate years ago. These people do not want to engage Bush in a debate anymore than an extremist on the far right would want to engage in a debate on abortion or stem cells. Their purpose is to remove the arguments from the debate and bring it down to a simple state of raw emotion, which normally involves chanting mindless slogans or doing something outrageous to garner attention. And, to be honest, I don't see what allowing either group to the table does to further the debate on social security or stem cell research giving the way they have collectively behaved in the past.

It's almost as if you guys want to allow any fringe group member to enter any privately run government debate and break into his protest chant midway through the event. Why? It's not like dissent isn't already in the room in the form of people will legitimate questions and a plan to behave respectfully. You let these other guys in and it becomes complete chaos (be it left or right) and the legitimate debate (that many of us would like to see to help make up our minds on these important issues like social security) goes right out the window replaced with mindless base emotion that makes the haters of the party in power laugh and slap each other on the back, but loses the point of the debate to help the people that care get more information on these issues.

Hey, allow hecklers and these crowds all you want on stump speaches, open gatherings in public and non-ticketed events. But, if the plan is to have an organized and civil debate run in a private manner, then I have no problem if people from groups that refuse to behave under that premise are not allowed in. Does that mean some people may be "unfairly" targetted in this process from time to time? Probably, but I would recommend that if people want to be in this legit debate that they not allow themselves to be associated with groups that have shown a history of not participating in these debates and instead trying to drum up emotional outbursts to make sure no debate takes place. Many of the people at that debate may never have a chance to ask the president questions or listen to his first-hand answers again. How fair is it to them if the debate gets cut shorts because three "No Blood for Oil" followers rip off their shirts and start chanting (or doing something worse) to end the debate?

Again, this is like if someone is seen at a white supremicist rally and then gets all upset when the organizer of the African American Martin Luther King Awards doesn't allow that person to stay in that event. It seems perfectly rational for the organizer of a privately-ticketed gathering or debate to try and keep the focus on civil and respectful debate in these situations.

[Flasch186]

See, this is what I don't get. The "blood for oil" crowd is no different than extremists on the right that are "white supremacists" or call the left "baby killers".

These are fringe groups that left the arena of debate years ago. These people do not want to engage Bush in a debate anymore than an extremist on the far right would want to engage in a debate on abortion or stem cells. Their purpose is to remove the arguments from the debate and bring it down to a simple state of raw emotion, which normally involves chanting mindless slogans or doing something outrageous to garner attention. And, to be honest, I don't see what allowing either group to the table does to further the debate on social security or stem cell research giving the way they have collectively behaved in the past.

It's almost as if you guys want to allow any fringe group member to enter any privately run government debate and break into his protest chant midway through the event. Why? It's not like dissent isn't already in the room in the form of people will legitimate questions and a plan to behave respectfully. You let these other guys in and it becomes complete chaos (be it left or right) and the legitimate debate (that many of us would like to see to help make up our minds on these important issues like social security) goes right out the window replaced with mindless base emotion that makes the haters of the party in power laugh and slap each other on the back, but loses the point of the debate to help the people that care get more information on these issues.

Hey, allow hecklers and these crowds all you want on stump speaches, open gatherings in public and non-ticketed events. But, if the plan is to have an organized and civil debate run in a private manner, then I have no problem if people from groups that refuse to behave under that premise are not allowed in. Does that mean some people may be "unfairly" targetted in this process from time to time? Probably, but I would recommend that if people want to be in this legit debate that they not allow themselves to be associated with groups that have shown a history of not participating in these debates and instead trying to drum up emotional outbursts to make sure no debate takes place. Many of the people at that debate may never have a chance to ask the president questions or listen to his first-hand answers again. How fair is it to them if the debate gets cut shorts because three "No Blood for Oil" followers rip off their shirts and start chanting (or doing something worse) to end the debate?

Again, this is like if someone is seen at a white supremicist rally and then gets all upset when the organizer of the African American Martin Luther King Awards doesn't allow that person to stay in that event. It seems perfectly rational for the organizer of a privately-ticketed gathering or debate to try and keep the focus on civil and respectful debate in these situations.


look there are plenty of avenues for the president to speak to the people and if he wants to go around having "town halls" then wonderful...I encourage that, however to use skewed terminology like "town hall" which immediately 99% of people think "public" and then not invite anyone in that doesnt agree falls under: (lesson here)

Feel Felt Found - its a sales technique, you can convince anyone on the fence about buying that "similar people have felt the same and what they found was that this is the best for them" thus this is the best for you.


Then the people on TV, that are on the fence see it, and they say, "you know margie, everyone else thinks this is a good idea, so we should too."

-- and our president should not be doing this shit....I, and most everyone, doesn't want a president who has to sell us shit.

This administration has been excellent in their salesmanship from Iraq, to Rove, to paying pundits, etc. So trust me, they know what they are doing and for anyone to claim otherwise is either naive or spun.

[flere-imsaho]

Just because you disagree with the direction he's taken with this country doesn't make him an idiot.

It's the series of catastrophically stupid decisions he's made as well as his obvious complete and utter lack of understanding on many of the issues which make him a moron, actually.

[Arles]

look there are plenty of avenues for the president to speak to the people and if he wants to go around having "town halls" then wonderful...I encourage that, however to use skewed terminology like "town hall" which immediately 99% of people think "public" and then not invite anyone in that doesnt agree falls under: (lesson here)
You mention naive below. Call me cynical, but I've seen enough political "town halls" up close on both sides to know it's very naive to think that any person off the street can go into to these and ask any questions they want. The questions and people asking the questions are screened prior and there are numerous guidelines given. To expect this type of a presidential town hall meeting to be where any person off the street can walk in and ask a question without any vetting is the definition of naive.

Then the people on TV, that are on the fence see it, and they say, "you know margie, everyone else thinks this is a good idea, so we should too."
Normally what happens is that the main objections are setup in a civil and guarded tone to allow the president to answer. This allows him to make his case. Is it geared towards making him look good? Probably, but it also lets you know what his arguments are. Then, you can easily turn to CNN/MSNBC/CBS/FOX/ABC... to get counter arguments. You act surprised that Bush setup a town hall meeting in a manner that prevented him from being ambushed. I hate to break it to you, but presidents have been doing that since the concept was first introduced.

-- and our president should not be doing this shit....I, and most everyone, doesn't want a president who has to sell us shit.
Every president from Carter to Reagan to the first Bush and Clinton having been trying to "sell us shit". Heck, Clinton was a master at using the town hall to sway opinion on issues - and that's not a bad thing IMO.

What do you think the point of a town hall is? It's to provide the president an avenue to try and convince the American people his ideas are the right way to go. For some reason, you seem taken aback at this principle. It's been the point of doing town halls for decades. This is not crossfire, it's simply the president answering a group of questions with the hope of convincing people to agree with his viewpoint.

I didn't think the point of town halls was that big of a mystery.

Arlie

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I don't see what allowing either group to the table does to further the debate on social security or stem cell research giving the way they have collectively behaved in the past.


Here's the basic thing: In this country (and the rest of the civilized world) we don't believe in collective punishment.


I have no problem with hecklers being ejected from an event like this. But to treat everyone who opposes Bush or wears a t-shirt with an anti-war slogan on it as if they were all the same person and punish them for the actions of someone else who wore an anti-war t-shirt is antithetical to Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

[st.cronin]

Here's the basic thing: In this country (and the rest of the civilized world) we don't believe in collective punishment.


I have no problem with hecklers being ejected from an event like this. But to treat everyone who opposes Bush or wears a t-shirt with an anti-war slogan on it as if they were all the same person and punish them for the actions of someone else who wore an anti-war t-shirt is antithetical to Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

As far as I can tell, these people were not punished in any way. (Unless you consider having their invitations revoked a punishment...)

[Flasch186]

You mention naive below. Call me cynical, but I've seen enough political "town halls" up close on both sides to know it's very naive to think that any person off the street can go into to these and ask any questions they want. The questions and people asking the questions are screened prior and there are numerous guidelines given. To expect this type of a presidential town hall meeting to be where any person off the street can walk in and ask a question without any vetting is the definition of naive.

Normally what happens is that the main objections are setup in a civil and guarded tone to allow the president to answer. This allows him to make his case. Is it geared towards making him look good? Probably, but it also lets you know what his arguments are. Then, you can easily turn to CNN/MSNBC/CBS/FOX/ABC... to get counter arguments. You act surprised that Bush setup a town hall meeting in a manner that prevented him from being ambushed. I hate to break it to you, but presidents have been doing that since the concept was first introduced.

Every president from Carter to Reagan to the first Bush and Clinton having been trying to "sell us shit". Heck, Clinton was a master at using the town hall to sway opinion on issues - and that's not a bad thing IMO.

What do you think the point of a town hall is? It's to provide the president an avenue to try and convince the American people his ideas are the right way to go. For some reason, you seem taken aback at this principle. It's been the point of doing town halls for decades. This is not crossfire, it's simply the president answering a group of questions with the hope of convincing people to agree with his viewpoint.

I didn't think the point of town halls was that big of a mystery.

Arlie

were tax dollars used?

[Arles]

were tax dollars used?
Tax dollars are used in most (if not all) government sponsored events, many of which involve a private ticketing process. Both Clinton and Bush have participated in "town hall" meetings during their terms that have be paid by me and you. Again, this is not a new concept. This is one of the many ways the president can use his "bully pulpit" to get out his message.

[Flasch186]

Then guess what ARLES, neither one is right PERIOD. If my tax dollar goes to fund it then you better be damned sure I better be able to go if I can secure a ticket. How can you be ok, with a person's tax dollar's funding this, them getting a ticket and then via profiling, they be asked to leave. Thats bullshit and you are spun.

[Flasch186]

DOLA:

you know what? Im frustrated with some of you being ok with stuff that is unethical. If its unethical, than say so. If it happens, great....you dont have to be ok with it. Think for yourself.

[st.cronin]

Personally, I think Bush's SS "plan" is preposterous, and I wish there were more people calling him out on it. I just don't see a problem here, and I'm puzzled that anybody does. I'm reminded of when I was in high school, and that gay rights group started throwing condoms around during a Catholic Mass. It's possible to support gay rights and think that's appalling behavior.

[Flasch186]

Personally, I think Bush's SS "plan" is preposterous, and I wish there were more people calling him out on it. I just don't see a problem here, and I'm puzzled that anybody does. I'm reminded of when I was in high school, and that gay rights group started throwing condoms around during a Catholic Mass. It's possible to support gay rights and think that's appalling behavior.

BINGO

[Loki]

It's the series of catastrophically stupid decisions he's made as well as his obvious complete and utter lack of understanding on many of the issues which make him a moron, actually.

is it possible that the President of the United States, and his group of professional advisors know more about what's going on than us FOFCers do?

[st.cronin]

is it possible that the President of the United States, and his group of professional advisors know more about what's going on than us FOFCers do?

Heaven forfend.

[flere-imsaho]

is it possible that the President of the United States, and his group of professional advisors know more about what's going on than us FOFCers do?

Know more about what's going on? I should hope so (although they got the WMD-Iraq thing rather completely wrong).

Know better about what to do? Not this President.

[Loki]

I'm not sure I'm reading you right.

I'm getting that you are saying that you know how to run the country better than the President and his advisors.

Is that right?

[Loki]

Sometimes these political threads get confusing. It's hard to keep what everyone is trying to say straight.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm getting that you are saying that you know how to run the country better than the President and his advisors.


Me and my deranged chimp, yes.

[Arles]

Then guess what ARLES, neither one is right PERIOD. If my tax dollar goes to fund it then you better be damned sure I better be able to go if I can secure a ticket. How can you be ok, with a person's tax dollar's funding this, them getting a ticket and then via profiling, they be asked to leave. Thats bullshit and you are spun.
OK, If you take issue with the way tax dollars are spent on Presidential bully pulpit events like "town meetings", then I get that. My point was that this type of thing has been going on for decades and was refined to an art by Clinton. Yet, there was never this level of outrage when he was doing it.

Still, I see no problem with what Clinton did or with what Bush is doing now. The president of the US has the right to use tax payer dollars to get his message out via press conferences, speeches, state of the unions, town meetings, etc. Who do you think pays for a portion of both the republican and democrat national conventions? And if you don't think people get asked to leave those in mid-stream without causing an enormous scene then you are mistaken.

[Loki]

Me and my deranged chimp, yes.

OK, I think that clears up the amount of relevance we should give your opinions.

EDIT: Not to say your opinions are stupid, just that you obviously hate Bush with a passion and it may affect your objectivity.

Sorry if it came off differently.

[Flasch186]

its easy IMO:

If a public official uses public dollars to host an event and only X amount of tickets are available, and Suzy Q gets a ticket. Than Suzy Q should not be excluded at a later point BASED UPON her beliefs unless of course it can be proven she skipped out on her tax bill.

its ethical, its moral, its the right way to be, and its simple.

[Flasch186]

OK, If you take issue with the way tax dollars are spent on Presidential bully pulpit events like "town meetings", then I get that. My point was that this type of thing has been going on for decades and was refined to an art by Clinton. Yet, there was never this level of outrage when he was doing it.

Still, I see no problem with what Clinton did or with what Bush is doing now. The president of the US has the right to use tax payer dollars to get his message out via press conferences, speeches, state of the unions, town meetings, etc. Who do you think pays for a big chunk of both the republican and democrat national conventions? And if you don't think people get asked to leave those in mid-stream without causing an enormous scene then you are mistaken.

only if you choose the button to donate. Otherwise your taxes SHOULD only be used for things like security, and stuff like that NOT to pay for the place theyre holding the convention, per se. I dont think my tax dollars should also pay for pundits to speak about shit either. thats unethical too. It doesnt matter at what level or what party, if you use tax dollars than you better hold yourself toa higher standard...this shit is sooo easy.

[Loki]

I don't see anything unethical or immoral with barring troublemakers from a publicly funded event.

I don't know how you can claim to know what is ethical and moral for everyone.

[Arles]

its easy IMO:

If a public official uses public dollars to host an event and only X amount of tickets are available, and Suzy Q gets a ticket. Than Suzy Q should not be excluded at a later point BASED UPON her beliefs unless of course it can be proven she skipped out on her tax bill.
Unless, of course, Suzy Q was shown to alterior motives for showing up and is later proven a high risk person for a disruption. This isn't like the right to vote. No one has "the right" to attend a presidential town hall, a presidential debate or even a party's convention.

These are honors that come with certain strings attached and if people are not comfortable with those strings, they shouldn't take the tickets.

[Flasch186]

Unless, of course, Suzy Q was shown to alterior motives for showing up and is later proven a high risk person for a disruption. This isn't like the right to vote. No one has "the right" to attend a presidential town hall, a presidential debate or even a party's convention.

These are honors that come with certain strings attached and if people are not comfortable with those strings, they shouldn't take the tickets.


i disagree with that. If it is security thats one thing, but to presume a disruption before it happens atfer suzy already got the ticket is profiling and unethical.

[flere-imsaho]

EDIT: Not to say your opinions are stupid, just that you obviously hate Bush with a passion and it may affect your objectivity.

Not really. In thread after thread I've dissected Administration policy and indicated where major mistakes were made. With a professional staff (like any President), I'm convinced I could do a better job than Bush.

[Flasch186]

I don't see anything unethical or immoral with barring troublemakers from a publicly funded event.

I don't know how you can claim to know what is ethical and moral for everyone.

i dont claim to know that for all, just the delineation of publicly elected officals and my money.

[Flasch186]

DOLA:

If my elected official doesnt agree with me on something like pro-choice he STILL gets to use my money and should. But he cannot use my monwey to set up an event, limit the tickets, give me one and then wait til i show up to boot me based on a bumper sticker, or potential for something to occur (unless its security)

[flere-imsaho]

I don't see anything unethical or immoral with barring troublemakers from a publicly funded event.

Good! Then you would have no problem with thinking that these three should not have been removed, as they hadn't actually made any trouble.

[Flasch186]

some more for you that it isnt the first time


Bush critics blocked from presidential events

Tue Mar 29, 7:16 PM ET

Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - Knight Ridder Newspapers

By Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Some of President Bush's supporters seem to be going overboard in their efforts to stifle dissent when he comes to town to talk about changing Social Security.


In Denver, three people say they were booted out of a presidential event last week even though they never uttered a peep, apparently because their car bore a bumper sticker denouncing the war in Iraq.

In Fargo, N.D., last month, local Republicans developed a blacklist of more than three dozen residents, including a city commissioner, who were to be banned from Bush's visit.

White House officials say they have nothing to do with the exclusions, which they blame on overzealous supporters.

"We welcome a diversity of views at the events," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday, although in fact participants at the events are carefully screened and dissenting voices are rare.

There was no welcome mat for Alex Young and his two companions when they showed up to see Bush on March 21 in Denver. Bush was there for one of a series of "conversations" about his plan to change Social Security.

Young and his friends, Karen Bauer and Leslie Weise, had barely gotten in the door before they were unceremoniously shown the exit by a man who refused to explain his actions. They thought he was a Secret Service agent because he had an earpiece and an official-looking lapel pin.

Young said he was later told by Secret Service officials that he and his friends had been ejected by a local Republican volunteer who'd been spurred to action by the bumper sticker on their car: "No More Blood for Oil."

"The thing that set them off was the bumper sticker," Young said in a telephone interview. "It was completely unprovoked. ... The whole time he was really pushing and shoving me. We were never told that only Republicans were invited."

Complaints about tight restrictions at Bush's events have become common. His presidential campaign used tight crowd-control screens last fall, and similar tactics now seem to be employed at official presidential stops, which unlike campaign events are paid for by taxpayers' dollars.

During Bush's Feb. 3 visit to Fargo, the local newspaper published a list of about 40 local residents who were supposed to be barred from the White House-sponsored event. City Commissioner Linda Coates, a Democrat, was on the list, along with her husband, Mike, but she got in anyway.

In a follow-up letter to the Fargo Forum newspaper, she called the attempted exclusion "one of those small dumb things" that is a symptom of a larger problem.

"It was jarring to realize that someone, somewhere, thought that making this list was the right thing to do. Sadly, the climate of keeping voices of disagreement at bay has become a well-known characteristic of this administration," she wrote.

In Denver, Young, a 25-year-old information-technology worker, acknowledges that he and his friends had initially intended to protest Bush's appearance. All wore "Stop the Lies" T-shirts under their outer clothing. They had planned to expose their shirts while shouting the slogan.

"It was kind of juvenile. When we got inside, we decided not to do that," he said.

Young said the man who ejected him had no way of knowing about the aborted protest because they kept their opinions to themselves during their brief time at the event. They got tickets to Bush's appearance through Rep. Bob Beauprez (news, bio, voting record), R-Colo., who handed them out without asking about party affiliation.

Still unclear is precisely who was behind the decision to eject the three people. Colorado Republican Party officials, the Secret Service and a spokesman for Beauprez all said they had nothing to do with it.



White House spokesman McClellan said: "My sense is that the volunteer felt that these individuals were coming to the event to disrupt it. If people are coming to the event to disrupt it, naturally they are going to be asked to leave."

But Dan Recht, a Denver lawyer says he's considering legal action on behalf of the ejected critics for what he sees as a violation of their free-speech rights. "They were punished for the speech that was on their bumper sticker," Recht said. "It just feels so un-American."

[Loki]

Good! Then you would have no problem with thinking that these three should not have been removed, as they hadn't actually made any trouble.

I have no problem with them being excluded.

I'd also have no problem if they were let in. I just don't see the moral outrage with either position.

[Arles]

i disagree with that. If it is security thats one thing, but to presume a disruption before it happens atfer suzy already got the ticket is profiling and unethical.
It's like if I attend an Awards event that does not allow pictures to be taken in the event. I get in with my camera stashed in my pocket and someone later sees me take the camera out. Even if I don't intend to take a picture, the organizers certainly have the right to kick me out because I am a high risk person to use flash photography when none was allowed. I see no difference in this instance. These people were deemed as high risk people to disrupt (a hypothesis later verified by their shirts they were wearing) and were asked to leave. No rights violated and perfectly acceptable behavior by the organizers.

[Flasch186]

It's like if I attend an Awards event that does not allow pictures to be taken in the event. I get in with my camera stashed in my pocket and someone later sees me take the camera out. Even if I don't intend to take a picture, the organizers certainly have the right to kick me out because I am a high risk person to use flash photography when none was allowed. I see no difference in this instance. These people were deemed as high risk people to disrupt (a hypothesis later verified by their shirts they were wearing) and were asked to leave. No rights violated and perfectly acceptable behavior by the organizers.

wrong, they can take your camera and give it back afterwards...im sure thats not how it goes down but thats the way it should IMO.

[rexallllsc]

Personally, I think Bush's SS "plan" is preposterous, and I wish there were more people calling him out on it. I just don't see a problem here, and I'm puzzled that anybody does. I'm reminded of when I was in high school, and that gay rights group started throwing condoms around during a Catholic Mass. It's possible to support gay rights and think that's appalling behavior.

Ok, so what was the "appalling behavior" demonstrated by those who were removed?

I don't think anyone would disagree with you that people who are causing a scene should be taken outside, but these people did nothing of the sort.

[rexallllsc]

Unless, of course, Suzy Q was shown to alterior motives for showing up and is later proven a high risk person for a disruption.

You trust the higher ups? You think that someone being a "high risk" for something is enough to act on it? How far are you willing to let people go?

Wow. We're no longer acting on facts and things that HAVE happened, but assumptions and "alterior motives".

[Loki]

It seems like some people here are looking for a reason to get mad, and this just happened to come across the wire.

Seriously, what's the big deal?

[Arles]

In Denver, Young, a 25-year-old information-technology worker, acknowledges that he and his friends had initially intended to protest Bush's appearance. All wore "Stop the Lies" T-shirts under their outer clothing. They had planned to expose their shirts while shouting the slogan.

"It was kind of juvenile. When we got inside, we decided not to do that," he said.
This is just laughable. The reason they didn't "do that" is because they were removed before they had a chance. It's easy to say after they were removed and shown to have these shirts on that they didn't really plan on going through with it. But, I find it highly unlikely that they would go through the effort in obtaining tickets, syncronizing their outfits and spacing themselves in the event to get exposure - then, suddenly, deciding not to do it because of some sudden realization that it was juvenile.

The reality is the organizers correctly picked out people that were planning on disrupting the event and they were all pissed off because they didn't get their moment to attack Bush. The fact this point has been missed on everyone is quite remarkable.

[st.cronin]

It seems like some people here are looking for a reason to get mad, and this just happened to come across the wire.

Seriously, what's the big deal?

Exactly. There is as much irrational hatred of Bush on the far left as there was of Clinton on the far right. And it's just as productive.

[Arles]

You trust the higher ups? You think that someone being a "high risk" for something is enough to act on it? How far are you willing to let people go?

Wow. We're no longer acting on facts and things that HAVE happened, but assumptions and "alterior motives".
Again, this is a privately ticketed event that was funded by the government. There are screening and people excluded from these events all the time. This is not like someone was not allowed a chance to vote. There is no "right" to attend and stay at a privately screened event, regardless of whether or not it was publically funded.

Plus, if someone does get excluded that had no intention to disrupt and only had a Kerry bumper sticker (no T-Shirts or history of disruption), then there will be a higher amount of outrage and that process will probably be frowned upon in future situations. So, I don't buy this "slipery slope" argument. In this case, the organizers were right and there is a very good chance these people were planning on disrupting this event. Of course, we won't know for sure because they were removed before they had the chance. But, I think it's pretty obvious why they went through the effort in dressing the way they did and attending the event - even though some people refuse to admit that.

[rexallllsc]

White House spokesman McClellan said: "My sense is that the volunteer felt that these individuals were coming to the event to disrupt it. If people are coming to the event to disrupt it, naturally they are going to be asked to leave."

But Dan Recht, a Denver lawyer says he's considering legal action on behalf of the ejected critics for what he sees as a violation of their free-speech rights. "They were punished for the speech that was on their bumper sticker," Recht said. "It just feels so un-American."

Good article.

The last two paragraphs really sum it up. "my sense is that the volunteer felt..."

So now we're acting on feelings? "I saw him coming at me on the street and punched him in the face because I felt that he was going to rob me"

[rexallllsc]

I wonder if someone could have gotten into the meeting with a "I fucked your mother" t-shirt on.

Would there be outrage if they got kicked out?

The organizers didn't even know they had any kinda of political shirts on. They were kicked out because of the bumper sticker.

[Arles]

wrong, they can take your camera and give it back afterwards...im sure thats not how it goes down but thats the way it should IMO.
They can also kick you out and have done so on numerous occasions. It's obvious you refuse to concede this normally practiced process and are intent on thinking that these republicans are the first to ask someone to be removed based on that person being a high risk of disrupting.

[rexallllsc]

This is just laughable. The reason they didn't "do that" is because they were removed before they had a chance.

I remember that one time I saw this group of kids. I called the cops and had them scatter the group because I just KNEW they were going to rob me. Luckily, "they were removed before they had a chance."

[Arles]

I remember that one time I saw this group of kids. I called the cops and had them scatter the group because I just KNEW they were going to rob me. Luckily, "they were removed before they had a chance."
If they were packing a weapon or had another high risk factor (like the T-Shirts in the town meeting), you probably did the right thing in regards to protecting your property.

[Flasch186]

This is just laughable. The reason they didn't "do that" is because they were removed before they had a chance. It's easy to say after they were removed and shown to have these shirts on that they didn't really plan on going through with it. But, I find it highly unlikely that they would go through the effort in obtaining tickets, syncronizing their outfits and spacing themselves in the event to get exposure - then, suddenly, deciding not to do it because of some sudden realization that it was juvenile.

The reality is the organizers correctly picked out people that were planning on disrupting the event and they were all pissed off because they didn't get their moment to attack Bush. The fact this point has been missed on everyone is quite remarkable.


I find it laughable you accept one group's word as gospel but say another group's is a lie. How do you know? How do you know what would've happened? It's the same as everything else, youre spun. If it fits your line of thought you take it, swallow it, and extoll it but if it doesn't you come up with any way to run it over...even if all the verbage is the same, speculative crap. YOU and ME have no idea the truth, but what we do know is what is the "right behavior" and the "wrong behavior" based upon or laws and constitution. What is being done, when using public tax dollars, is polarizing, prejudicial, and unethical. All they have to do is used fund-raised or donated dollars than my mouth and most everyone else's is shut.

[Flasch186]

They can also kick you out and have done so on numerous occasions. It's obvious you receive to concede this normally practiced process and are intent on thinking that these republicans are the first to ask someone to be removed based on that person being a high risk of disrupting.

I said thats the way it should be.....I cant get them to all do what i want :p

[Klinglerware]

I wonder if someone could have gotten into the meeting with a "I fucked your mother" t-shirt on.

Would there be outrage if they got kicked out?

But then the question would be, would that person get kicked out for wearing a shirt like that? The message on the shirt, while lewd, probably would not merit as much concern from a staffer when compared to a shirt with overtly political overtones...

[Flasch186]

Again, this is a privately ticketed event that was funded by the government. There are screening and people excluded from these events all the time. This is not like someone was not allowed a chance to vote. There is no "right" to attend and stay at a privately screened event, regardless of whether or not it was publically funded.


were just going to have to disagree then, cuz youre willing to pay for events where people who rightfully get tickets and then because someone "has a feeling" kick them out becasue perhaps somewhere in their brain they are possibly disagreeing with the salesman, and I am not. If they disrupt then kick them out...but tell me because I wear a USFL T shirt and you dont know what USFL is I have to leave. You accept too much.

[Arles]

I find it laughable you accept one group's word as gospel but say another group's is a lie.
I am not accepting either party's "word", I am simply going by the verified facts of the situation. Now, I just want to be 100% accurate here. You feel that this group of anti-Bush activists:

1. Went through the work to obtain these tickets
2. Dressed in a manner completely consistent with someone that would disrupt (ie, all wearing the same hidden T-Shirt saying "Stop his lies")
3. Setup in the town meeting a position to make a disruption

And, with all that, they had absolutely no desire to disrupt the event? Remember, these are not "someone's word" these are facts that have been verified by both sides.
I'm trying to keep a straight face here, but it's difficult. So, to be sure, this is seriously what you believe?

[Arles]

were just going to have to disagree then, cuz youre willing to pay for events where people who rightfully get tickets
I'm stopping you right here because the tickets were obtained for free. No one "paid" for entry, they were given away for free by congressmen and others. IIRC, it's against the rules to charge people to attend at these events (makes it more like a fundraiser and therefore would violate federally funding guidelines).

[panerd]

What if I was running the event and saw a bunch of guys in dark suits and conservative ties and thought they were a bunch a pricks who cared more about money than anything else in life and wouldn't let them in? Something to think about?

EDIT: Supposed to be a stupid post before I get called a hippie beatnik or worse.

[rexallllsc]

If they were packing a weapon or had another high risk factor (like the T-Shirts in the town meeting), you probably did the right thing in regards to protecting your property.

t-shirts = high risk factor

RAISE THE TERRA ALERT LEVEL! TIME TO GET NUKULUR BOYS!

[Arles]

What if I was running the event and saw a bunch of guys in dark suits and conservative ties and thought they were a bunch a pricks who cared more about money than anything else in life and wouldn't let them in? Something to think about?
Then, my guess is that there would an acceptable level of outrage to your actions to probably deter you from doing it again. Now, if it was found that these people in suits had T-Shirts on underneath that said "Democrats are baby killers" and were affiliated with right wing groups that have a history of disrupting events, the outrage level would probably go away.

[Flasch186]

I'm stopping you right here because the tickets were obtained for free. No one "paid" for entry, they were given away for free by congressmen and others. IIRC, it's against the rules to charge people to attend at these events (makes it more like a fundraiser and therefore would violate federally funding guidelines).

1. I meant WE paid for it, not the people that went to it....me and you (taxes)
2. Man, Arles, sounds to me like profiling and the NAACP would have your goiter. Im against it, I think its unethical, and I think its scary that our goverment would behave in a way that is excitingly similar. IT equally scares me that you are ok with it.

I think our issue may be the difference b/w uses tax dollars and not.

[st.cronin]

What if I was running the event and saw a bunch of guys in dark suits and conservative ties and thought they were a bunch a pricks who cared more about money than anything else in life and wouldn't let them in? Something to think about?

:rolleyes:

First of all, the SS debate, such as it actually is a debate, is ENTIRELY about money. There is an overwhelming consensus regarding the values aspect of the subject. The debate is entirely about which money goes where.

Blood and oil are related, if at all, by many, many degrees of separation.

[Flasch186]

Then, my guess is that there would an acceptable level of outrage to your actions to probably deter you from doing it again. Now, if it was found that these people in suits had T-Shirts on underneath that said "Democrats are baby killers" and were affiliated with right wing groups that have a history of disrupting events, the outrage level would probably go away.

99% of people are somewhat affiliated with something...I mean shit Im a member of Costco. You have to have some morals, man....and remember that not only is everyone equal but so are their opinions. They may not be right, but they deserve equal attention....without knowing the wrong, youll never know if youre right.

[Arles]

1. I meant WE paid for it, not the people that went to it....me and you (taxes)
2. Man, Arles, sounds to me like profiling and the NAACP would have your goiter. Im against it, I think its unethical, and I think its scary that our goverment would behave in a way that is excitingly similar. IT equally scares me that you are ok with it.

I think our issue may be the difference b/w uses tax dollars and not.
If your opinion on this was the norm, where is the national outrage? Where's the lawsuits? To this point, this story has next to no play outside of some lefty columnist in Denver, a minor AP blurb and a couple liberal-leaning blogs. To non-partisan people this is really a non-issue. A group of people that seemed to be intent on disrupting a private event being asked to leave is not a big deal to most people.

The fact that some on this thread keep making a mountain out of this as if this action now means people can punch others in face, openly discriminate in other forums or do other crazy things is just silly. This isn't a precedent and has been going on for decades in presidential politics. Now, I get some of you don't feel comfortable with this process and I'm fine with that. I think it's a little paranoid and over-reactive, but I understand people can be a little of both at times. But, in no way should either side of this debate cause "great concern" with the overall issue of civil liberties. Making that leap is just not valid in this case.

[Flasch186]

If your opinion on this was the norm, where is the national outrage? Where's the lawsuits? To this point, this story has next to no play outside of some lefty columnist in Denver, a minor AP blurb and a couple liberal-leaning blogs. To non-partisan people this is really a non-issue. A group of people that seemed to be intent on disrupting a private event being asked to leave is not a big deal to most people.

The fact that some on this thread keep making a mountain out of this as if this action now means people can punch others in face, openly discriminate in other forums or do other crazy things is just silly. This isn't a precedent and has been going on for decades in presidential politics. Now, I get some of you don't feel comfortable with this process and I'm fine with that. I think it's a little paranoid and over-reactive, but I understand people can be a little of both at times. But, in no way should either side of this debate cause "great concern" with the overall issue of civil liberties. Making that leap is just not valid in this case.


well, i agree...my opinion is mine only....no one should be punching people.

[Celeval]

Here's why I have a huge problem with this.

Alex Young, 25, an Internet technology worker from Denver who was among the three removed from the event March 17 at Wings over the Rockies, said officials told them the next day they were identified as belonging to the "No Blood for Oil" group.

Young said they belong to no such group, but the car they drove to the event had a bumper sticker that read: "No More Blood for Oil."The 'No Blood for Oil' site is hxxp://www.nbfo.net/. They have a handful of printable posters, meeting schedules, and the like. They have a link that looks like it should go to an online store, but it seems to be down.

Googling for 'No More Blood for Oil' brings me to two different cafepress stores on the first page. The first is affiliated with a different anti-Bush site. The other has stickers/items on a variety of topics, political and otherwise - including both pro- and anti-Bush. Either way, there is a distinct difference, as what I see on the No Blood for Oil is specifically THAT slogan, without the 'More'. The 'More' pops up in an awful lot of places, including the title of a recent Eminem song.

Yes, these people obviously were not fans of Bush. It is possible, but unproven either way, that they would have disrupted the event in some fashion. However, by the admittance of those running the event, the T-shirts were not a factor in their dismissal.

So as I see it, they were asked to leave because of a link to a group via bumper sticker... but it seems very possible and even likely that the link did and does not exist.

[Arles]

Yes, these people obviously were not fans of Bush. It is possible, but unproven either way, that they would have disrupted the event in some fashion. However, by the admittance of those running the event, the T-shirts were not a factor in their dismissal.
But the T-Shirts do show they were correct in their assumptions. I would certainly agree that this is dangerous game from a political standpoint. If they would have asked someone to leave because they had a Kerry bumper-sticker and it turned out that person had no legit reason to expect that person would disturb the event, the people in charge would pay a political cost.

In this instance, though, they were correct in their assumptions and it was very plausible that these three had a planned demonstration involving their hidden "Stop the Lies" shirts they were wearing.

So, while I think this type of action is dicey in today's political climate if done fairly liberally, I don't see how this instance shows the process is faulty. Again, there's a very good chance that had these three not been shown the door that they could have not only disrupted the event but also been arrested. So, I fail to see the reason for outrage if the organizers correctly IDed people that had a high chance of causing a disruption.

[Celeval]

But the T-Shirts do show they were correct in their assumptions. I would certainly agree that this is dangerous game from a political standpoint.
They were seemingly incorrect in their assumptions - that they were a member of this particular group and intent on causing a disruption. They got lucky, plain and simple.

[illinifan999]

Stores have a sign that says "May refuse service" I guess the Secret Service or whoever decided to refuse service. That's THEIR right.

[JonInMiddleGA]

They may not be right, but they deserve equal attention....

Okay, I'm gonna try to do this really carefully, because it's something that I really want you to consider. Not "agree", just "consider", and probably "remember" too (if there's any long term goal).

I want to focus strictly on the general premise quoted above, because I believe that it's something that you would apply to subjects other than this specific one. M'kay? I'm not just talking about this incident, just a general rule of thumb.

Now, what I want you to recognize is where we part company on that statement, the caveat that puts me around 180 degrees from you on the generality.

You said "They may not be right, but they deserve equal attention...." to which I would add "... but not forever." In other words, if you've considered and rejected something, based upon whatever criteria you choose to make your judgements on, then it seems the height of inefficiency to continually reconsider it when there is no change in the argument nor in the reason(s) you rejected it.

In fact, doing so reminds me of the quote attributed to Albert Einstein, "“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

[gstelmack]

I remember that one time I saw this group of kids. I called the cops and had them scatter the group because I just KNEW they were going to rob me. Luckily, "they were removed before they had a chance."
So exactly what evidence is required of their intent before you step in and stop them? I'm always amused that people want the police, FBI, CIA, etc to stop crime before it happens, but then get all indignant when someone gets caught with all kinds of incriminating but otherwise legal paraphenalia.

These people were clearly set up to disrupt the event, someone saw the signs and called them on it, and now people are indignant at the outrage. So how do you prevent people from doing something if you have to wait until they do it to stop them?

Sure, you don't break up some random group of kids, but what if you see a gun? Knife? Nazi slogan on a T-Shirt? What do these kids have to be doing before you are willing to call the cops? Actually beat someone up?

[rexallllsc]

So exactly what evidence is required of their intent before you step in and stop them? I'm always amused that people want the police, FBI, CIA, etc to stop crime before it happens, but then get all indignant when someone gets caught with all kinds of incriminating but otherwise legal paraphenalia.

The people who kicked them out didn't even see the shirts. All they went on was the bumper sticker. That's it.

Anyone else think it's funny that the Bushies would have a hissy about that sticker? Did the sticker hit too close to home?

[Flasch186]

Okay, I'm gonna try to do this really carefully, because it's something that I really want you to consider. Not "agree", just "consider", and probably "remember" too (if there's any long term goal).

I want to focus strictly on the general premise quoted above, because I believe that it's something that you would apply to subjects other than this specific one. M'kay? I'm not just talking about this incident, just a general rule of thumb.

Now, what I want you to recognize is where we part company on that statement, the caveat that puts me around 180 degrees from you on the generality.

You said "They may not be right, but they deserve equal attention...." to which I would add "... but not forever." In other words, if you've considered and rejected something, based upon whatever criteria you choose to make your judgements on, then it seems the height of inefficiency to continually reconsider it when there is no change in the argument nor in the reason(s) you rejected it.

In fact, doing so reminds me of the quote attributed to Albert Einstein, "“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.


okay, I see your point but you also have to consider the fact that times change and therefore contexts may change and whether or not something is right or wrong may change, in the eyes of the courts.

For example, for a long time abortion was illegal than Roe v. Wade happened. Also, many times new court case's nullify what courts have ruled in the past and sometimes this simply can happen based on who or what is being presented.

Therefore, I can see your point but it is a dangerous game to play to discount an opinion because what you'll find is that those in power MAY begin to discount the minority's opinion based PERHAPS not on what the opinion is but the fact that it came from the MINORITY.

I will quote some one in saying that, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrups absolutely." It is the minority opinion that keeps things in check.



IN THIS CASE, my problem is not so much that the Presidnet held a "convention, or presentation, or meeting"....my problem, as Ive explained quite clearly is the fact that:

The administration used Public tax dollars to hold a "TOWN HALL", which semantically lends itself to the fact that MOST people would consider this to be a public forum based on the definition alone (which they may have known - and would be good selling terminology). THEN, the same organizers, based on ONE PERSON's FEELING, proceeded to kick 3 tax payers, who legally received tickets, out of said meeting based on a bumper sticker on their car (no one knew of the T shirts at that moment so that is completely irrelevant to the point im making). That is my problem....to solve this, ALL Bush Jr. would have to do, or any past presidents (Arles) is:

Hold a meeting, or convention, or fund raiser, etc. and then they can pick and choose whomever they want to be there.

thats it.

[Flasch186]

So exactly what evidence is required of their intent before you step in and stop them? I'm always amused that people want the police, FBI, CIA, etc to stop crime before it happens, but then get all indignant when someone gets caught with all kinds of incriminating but otherwise legal paraphenalia.

These people were clearly set up to disrupt the event, someone saw the signs and called them on it, and now people are indignant at the outrage. So how do you prevent people from doing something if you have to wait until they do it to stop them?

Sure, you don't break up some random group of kids, but what if you see a gun? Knife? Nazi slogan on a T-Shirt? What do these kids have to be doing before you are willing to call the cops? Actually beat someone up?

what signs, did I miss something...I think all it was was a bumper sticker on a car....BIG difference, IMO. Unless, you can show me where it said signage was there...

[Loki]

I think everyone here is in agreement that these guys were going to cause a scene.

Flasch, is your case that they should be allowed to cause trouble before being escorted out?

[Schmidty]

I am starting to despise this country, or at least the people in it. Do you people actually believe that WHATEVER side you are defending politically is the "correct" side? Give me a fucking break. There is no right and there is no wrong politically anymore. Both sides are fucked up and anyone that sides whole-heartedly with one of them is fucking moron. There I said it.

[Flasch186]

I think everyone here is in agreement that these guys were going to cause a scene.

Flasch, is your case that they should be allowed to cause trouble before being escorted out?

Seriusly, it has to do with the "public" presentation of what they were doing. Ok so we're in agreement there that the idea was to sell this as a "public" event which is bolstered by the fact that they used tax dollars to hold it.

Then these 3 people were able to get tickets to the event and rightfully so as they didn't use fraudulent measures to get them.

They were tossed on the "presumption" that they would cause a scene and that is one of my problems.

the problems are:

Public event in which some members of the public are excluded after securing a ticket which only a certain number exist.

Kicking someone out on a presumption



Let me tell you, if our government starts acting on presumptions when dealing with members of the public.....YES, I have a big problem with this. If you're okay with this, than I saw a report that linked finger length in men to whether or not they will be prone to violent behavior.....care to start lining up to get your fingers measured any time soon?

YES, This scares me.

[Flasch186]

I am starting to despise this country, or at least the people in it. Do you people actually believe that WHATEVER side you are defending politically is the "correct" side? Give me a fucking break. There is no right and there is no wrong politically anymore. Both sides are fucked up and anyone that sides whole-heartedly with one of them is fucking moron. There I said it.

this doesnt have to do with politics IMO, its about the proper way to treat people.

[Schmidty]

this doesnt have to do with politics IMO, its about the proper way to treat people.

That doesn't change what I said by one iota.

Time to go listen to some Dhamma talks. Yes, I'm a Christian, but nothing calms me when I'm angry like some Theravadan teaching by Ajahn Brahm.

[st.cronin]

I am starting to despise this country, or at least the people in it. Do you people actually believe that WHATEVER side you are defending politically is the "correct" side? Give me a fucking break. There is no right and there is no wrong politically anymore. Both sides are fucked up and anyone that sides whole-heartedly with one of them is fucking moron. There I said it.

I like this post! Except that I do like this country, and most of the people in it... otherwise i think it's spot on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

okay, I see your point ...

Then at least my efforts were successful in that regard. I prolly ought to just stop right there. But ...

... because what you'll find is that those in power MAY begin to discount the minority's opinion based PERHAPS not on what the opinion is but the fact that it came from the MINORITY.

Okay, maybe I'm just reading this sentence wrong, but for the life of me it looks like you just did same/similar that you're upset with the SS for doing -- presuming a certain degree of guilt before an act took place.

... which semantically lends itself to the fact that MOST people would consider this to be a public forum based on the definition alone

Now, far be it from me to ever give the general public too much credit, but ... I'm having a tough time believing that a majority of the public who pays enough attention to thing to even give a damn that the event was occurring would actually believe that a "public forum" with the POTUS is an unrestricted event. It doesn't work that way, it hasn't worked that way in ... well I'm 37, nearly 38, and I don't ever recall a time when it worked that way, nor can I imagine it will ever work that way -- the security risk is simply too high, regardless of which party is in office.

[JonInMiddleGA]

YES, This scares me.

Hmm .... ever hear the one about guilty and the barking dog?

[Loki]

Seriusly, it has to do with the "public" presentation of what they were doing. Ok so we're in agreement there that the idea was to sell this as a "public" event which is bolstered by the fact that they used tax dollars to hold it.

Then these 3 people were able to get tickets to the event and rightfully so as they didn't use fraudulent measures to get them.

They were tossed on the "presumption" that they would cause a scene and that is one of my problems.

the problems are:

Public event in which some members of the public are excluded after securing a ticket which only a certain number exist.

Kicking someone out on a presumption



Let me tell you, if our government starts acting on presumptions when dealing with members of the public.....YES, I have a big problem with this. If you're okay with this, than I saw a report that linked finger length in men to whether or not they will be prone to violent behavior.....care to start lining up to get your fingers measured any time soon?

YES, This scares me.

I'll assume that was the non-answer way of saying that they should have been allowed to cause a scene before being kicked out.

[Loki]

That's an interesting position.

[Arles]

As an aside, there's a follow up story on the wire service I get via email that mentions that these three were all members of a political group called "the Denver Progressives" and that this group had been disruptive in other events in the past. It also mentions that one of the people that asked these people to leave stated they were listed on a "watch list" that they had. I don't know anymore than this, but it does seem that there may have been more than just a simple bumper sticker.

Now, the more I read about this story, the more I think there could be one area this unknown republican operative could be in hot water for. I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but I think that a person can only call on the secret service if there is a legitimate threat to the president or someone close to them. This *seems* like this operative used the SS to remove someone that could potentially disrupt the event, but that wasn't truely a threat to the president. This may be something that this person could get in some trouble for as it appears to me to be inappropriate use of the Secret Service. But I want to be very clear, this has nothing to do with the decision to remove the people, simply the manner with which it was done. Had this staffer instead escorted the person out himself or asked event security to do so, he would have been fine from a legal standpoint.

[rexallllsc]

As an aside, there's a follow up story on the wire service I get via email that mentions that these three were all members of a political group called "the Denver Progressives" and that this group had been disruptive in other events in the past. It also mentions that one of the people that asked these people to leave stated they were listed on a "watch list" that they had. I don't know anymore than this, but it does seem that there may have been more than just a simple bumper sticker.

Much more...like what?

Also, "watch list" for non-violent objectors is pretty fucking scary.

[Arles]

Much more...like what?

Also, "watch list" for non-violent objectors is pretty fucking scary.
Why? Most local organizers have a list of local protestors to look out for on both sides. It's called doing your due dilligence and not risking your event being overrun by hoodlams from either side of the political aisle. It's not like the president or US government had this list.

[Flasch186]

Why? Most local organizers have a list of local protestors to look out for on both sides. It's called doing your due dilligence and not risking your event being overrun by hoodlams from either side of the political aisle. It's not like the president or US government had this list.

again...i shouldnt have had to have my money pay for the event if I couldnt go to it. that is just not right.

[Glengoyne]

Part of me is proud that the Secret Service can detect bothersome Tshirts from under business attire. Don't even bother trying to get a weapon through, they even have T-shirt detectors.

Another part of me is a bit disappointed that we don't let people be disruptive before removing them from an event.

Maybe there was an minimum IQ level required for participation? The "no blood for oil" bumper stickers are a sure fire indicator for low IQs.

Also since the Secret Service denied involvement in the deal, why wouldn't we believe them. Perhaps they just assumed the fit looking guy in a suit that escorted them out was Secret Service. This really seems much more like something the President's people would do thatn the Secret Service.

Oh and I don't think any official individual identified them as belonging to the "blood for oil" group, I think the folks that got escorted out came to that conclusion.

[Arles]

again...i shouldnt have had to have my money pay for the event if I couldnt go to it. that is just not right.
You paid for the DNC convention, RNC convention, presidential debates and State of the Union. I doubt any of us could have attended those without serious connections - so why the hang up now?

[Flasch186]

You paid for the DNC convention, RNC convention, presidential debates and State of the Union. I doubt any of us could have attended those without serious connections - so why the hang up now?

Debates I have no problem with at all, as it is a necessary part of the election process and the public, unless invited to do so, have been able to attend, if you can get a ticket. I havnt heard of people being booted before the event started though, once they got to their seats.

Stat of the Union, I have no problem with, as most people dont think of it as a public event.

The Conventions I DO have a problem with IF they exclude people from it. However I noticed that Michale Moore was able to attend the RNC so I thought that they did exactly what they shouldve done this time...and he didn't disrupt it, did he? So if they allow people to attend and dont PROFILE then im cool paying for that too, but I think my money should also go to fund independent candidates conventions too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

again...i shouldnt have had to have my money pay for the event if I couldnt go to it. that is just not right.

Been to many State Dinners lately?

[Comey]

Originally Posted by VPI97
I don't think you understand the First Amendment.


Ditto.
You do realize he was talking about you, right? Maybe you should read what others write next time, and not just jump around some buzzwords.

[Arles]

They got lucky, plain and simple.
Yes, they instituting the process of non-Race and non-Gender profiling - one that has helped police catch and convict numerous criminals over the past 50 years. I'd imagine if they did a similar process in the next privately held event, they would probably get "lucky" again.

[Arles]

Debates I have no problem with at all, as it is a necessary part of the election process and the public, unless invited to do so, have been able to attend, if you can get a ticket. I havnt heard of people being booted before the event started though, once they got to their seats.
Numerous people have been asked to leave debated after being admitted and before they began. My mother (a proud lefty) told me of two occassions involving people in the last presidential debate in Phoenix. There's a high level of paranoia by most event handlers for debates because of what's on the line. They also go through significantly more vetting - so it's doubtful these three would have even been allowed to enter given their affiliation with the Denver Progressives group.

Stat of the Union, I have no problem with, as most people dont think of it as a public event.
So, from your standpoint, it's OK to "infringe upon free speech" if people don't think it's a public event? Trying to follow your logic here.

So if they allow people to attend and dont PROFILE
Non-race and non-gender profiling is one of the top assets to police, security and secret service law enforcement. You act as if this is some kind of new phenominon. "Profiling" has been done in every presidential event of record. It's a very useful tool in trying to PREVENT disruption and crime - which is often the first priority of law enforcement and the Secret Service.

[Flasch186]

Numerous people have been asked to leave debated after being admitted and before they began. My mother (a proud lefty) told me of two occassions involving people in the last presidential debate in Phoenix. There's a high level of paranoia by most event handlers for debates because of what's on the line. They also go through significantly more vetting - so it's dpubtful these three would have even been allowed to enter given their affiliation with the Denver Progressives group.


So, from your standpoint, it's OK to "infringe upon free speech" if people don't think it's a public event? Trying to follow your logic here.


Non-race and non-gender profiling is one of the top assets to police, security and secret service law enforcement. You act as if this is some kind of new phenominon. "Profiling" has been done in every presidential of record. It's a very useful tool in trying to PREVENT disruption and crime - which is often the first priority of law enforcement and the Secret Service.


And here we go again:

ARLES: Just because it is done does not make it right and you dont have to say its "ok" because your slant was the one that did it or not.

State of the Union - most people dont consider a public event (im sure some people felt it was a load of crap)

vs.

a "town hall" in which they do assume it is public.


if you hold an ARLES fundraiser and its at a private place (can be public if rented out for the night) and want to spout off on the greatness of ARLES, then so be it but dont call it a "Town Hall" meeting, or a community gathering, or a public debate....if its not.


If people were kicked out of a debate because people thought they, MIGHT, disrupt, then I dont think that that is right (unless of course they are wearing a badge that says "Im going to yell out" or signage or something like that. You CANNOT LOOK at someone in this country and PREJUDGE them. It is wrong, period!!!!








See what I am is NOT a hypocrite...imagine that. I dont care which party it is, and I dont care if its done everyday....if its not right, its not right

[Arles]

What do you expect a town hall meeting with the president to be? A chance for any guy off the street to come in and spout off anti-war venom against him?

I guess we just have a difference of an opinion on what a town hall meeting involving the president is. Perhaps you've been watching a little too much of "the West Wing" and not enough of real presidential town hall meetings ;)

[Arles]

In hopes of clearing up this thread, it appears that people like Flasch are not comfortable with their tax dollars being used on "Town Hall" style meetings. I certainly can understand this sentiment and think that is a very fair (and consistent) stance. The best thing to do would be to email your congressmen and ask that they either change the title of these events to "Issue advocacy" meetings or not allow public funding.

Outside of that, this process will probably continue on well past Bush and the next president as it has up to this point.

[Flasch186]

In hopes of clearing up this thread, it appears that people like Flasch are not comfortable with their tax dollars being used on "Town Hall" style meetings. I certainly can understand this sentiment and think that is a very fair (and consistent) stance. The best thing to do would be to email your congressmen and ask that they either change the title of these events to "Issue advocacy" meetings or not allow public funding.

Outside of that, this process will probably continue on well past Bush and the next president as it has up to this point.

And that, my friend, is how I feel, EXACTLY. The title, you proposed, I would be fine with....

it was the terminology and how most American's think about it when they hear it.

BTW, I would be fine with the "town hall" meetings using tax dollars if everyone who got a ticket were treated the same...otherwise, what you say above i agree with.

[Arles]

I actually don't think this is all that unreasonable an action as well. The moons must be in some strange orbit today :p

[duckman]

It only took five pages to come to this conclusion. :p ;)

[Arles]

I take pride in my verbose and somewhat obtuse nature on political issues :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

a "town hall" in which they do assume it is public.

You know what they say about assuming ...

Seriously Flasch, I worry about people who would make that assumption about a Presidential affair, even if it had a sign out front that said "Open House - Free Beer Here Tonight" ... regardless of what party that President happened to be a member of. I've dealt with the process with both parties (well, one sitting President and one ex-President) and there was no noticeable difference in how it was handled with either.

Assuming that anybody-can-just-come-on-in-because-it-said-Town-Hall shows a level of naivety that makes me believe those assumptors probably aren't going to be sharp enough to add anything worthwhile to the discussion in the first place, so their absence isn't really a loss.

Honest to goodness Flasch, I really do believe (cross my heart, no lie, no joke) that you're smarter than this if you slow down and think about it for a minute. If you want to rail against the reality of it, that's cool (I'll ignore you, but it's cool), but please don't confuse how-you-wish-things-are with how-things-are. That sort of error tends to damage credibility & effectiveness.

[Flasch186]

You know what they say about assuming ...

Seriously Flasch, I worry about people who would make that assumption about a Presidential affair, even if it had a sign out front that said "Open House - Free Beer Here Tonight" ... regardless of what party that President happened to be a member of. I've dealt with the process with both parties (well, one sitting President and one ex-President) and there was no noticeable difference in how it was handled with either.

Assuming that anybody-can-just-come-on-in-because-it-said-Town-Hall shows a level of naivety that makes me believe those assumptors probably aren't going to be sharp enough to add anything worthwhile to the discussion in the first place, so their absence isn't really a loss.

Honest to goodness Flasch, I really do believe (cross my heart, no lie, no joke) that you're smarter than this if you slow down and think about it for a minute. If you want to rail against the reality of it, that's cool (I'll ignore you, but it's cool), but please don't confuse how-you-wish-things-are with how-things-are. That sort of error tends to damage credibility & effectiveness.


Well honestly Jon, I think the fact that youre willing to ignore some and not others and say that youre okay with the way thigns are and not willing to think about the way things should be says a ton.

It is ok, to not think things are ok....EVEN if they'll never change. Its not naiive, its about standing behind your ethics and not throwing your hands up and saying, "oh well." I THINK that this STRENGTHENS credibility since you know Im not a hypocrite along with many others.

Just because they dont agree with you or dont agree with the admin. doesnt eman that they should be ignored...I reiterate my belief that you dont know if youre right unless you listen and consider the viewpoints of those you think are wrong.

Im sure you are equally as shocked that we disagree on most things and you would insinuate that my credibility is shoddy....WOW, that certainly comes out of nowhere that we would disagree and because we disagree instead of us being, equals and disagreeing, and our viewpoints being equaly valid.

im so :eek:

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lemme do the more important part first.

im so :eek:

If you're "eek" about what I said, then I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at.

I'm not talking about whether the situation re: how "town halls" really work is right, wrong, or indifferent -- my point was basing assumptions on something other than reality. That is what I was talking about damaging credibility in this instance, not what you/they/me thought about "how it should be".

If you want to change the reality, have at it ... but when you make assumptions about how things will work before you effect that change, then you have to make them based on the existing reality.

What I'm getting at is:
You believe that "Town Hall" should = pretty much wide open.
That's fine, work on it then. BUT ...
if you show up at one truly expecting to get in the door without being screened at the door (for a variety of factors), then that's where you're crossing into the territory of problems with fantasy (how it "oughta be") vs reality (how it really is).

And what I was trying to say was that I've never thought you had problems distinguishing the difference between the two -- a left-handed compliment perhaps, but intended as a compliment nonetheless. Phrased another way, "Wishing doesn't make it (immediately) so", and no matter what I think of a lot of your politics, I really think you understand that.

And all of this was really a point about the comment you made about "which they do assume it is public." What I'm saying is that anybody who made that assumption is either naive or an idiot or both. NOT those things if they wish it was so, but definitely those things if they believed that's how things are right now.

[Flasch186]

Lemme do the more important part first.



If you're "eek" about what I said, then I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at.

I'm not talking about whether the situation re: how "town halls" really work is right, wrong, or indifferent -- my point was basing assumptions on something other than reality. That is what I was talking about damaging credibility in this instance, not what you/they/me thought about "how it should be".

If you want to change the reality, have at it ... but when you make assumptions about how things will work before you effect that change, then you have to make them based on the existing reality.

What I'm getting at is:
You believe that "Town Hall" should = pretty much wide open.
That's fine, work on it then. BUT ...
if you show up at one truly expecting to get in the door without being screened at the door (for a variety of factors), then that's where you're crossing into the territory of problems with fantasy (how it "oughta be") vs reality (how it really is).

And what I was trying to say was that I've never thought you had problems distinguishing the difference between the two -- a left-handed compliment perhaps, but intended as a compliment nonetheless. Phrased another way, "Wishing doesn't make it (immediately) so", and no matter what I think of a lot of your politics, I really think you understand that.

And all of this was really a point about the comment you made about "which they do assume it is public." What I'm saying is that anybody who made that assumption is either naive or an idiot or both. NOT those things if they wish it was so, but definitely those things if they believed that's how things are right now.


ok

BUT

if i showed up at a "town hall" meeting and got turned down I'd be pissed BUT if they wouldnt let me in to a Republican Issue debate then I would fully understand as long as Im not paying for it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... if i showed up at a "town hall" meeting and got turned down I'd be pissed.

And I'm cool with you being pissed about it ... just so long as you, intellecutally & realistically, knew that there was a reasonable chance it was going to happen.

[Flasch186]

And I'm cool with you being pissed about it ... just so long as you, intellecutally & realistically, knew that there was a reasonable chance it was going to happen.

but Jon that doesnt make it right since I paid for it and the only difference between me and the person standing next to me (other than me being good looking) is somewhere in my brain.

[JonInMiddleGA]

but Jon that doesnt make it right since I paid for it and the only difference between me and the person standing next to me (other than me being good looking) is somewhere in my brain.

See, now there's the point we probably disagree on, but I'll only question your priorities/values/discernment from that, not your intellect (which is where I kinda gave you the wrong impression earlier).