Secret Service investigating removal of three from Bush visit

[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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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"?

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by duckman

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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

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]

Originally Posted by sabotai

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by VPI97

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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.

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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

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?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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?

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]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.