President Bush hits a home run.

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If you read the rest of that sentence, you'd see "in most Americans' lifetimes." I think the 87 and older crowd is pretty far out of the majority.

When was I defending liberals? Don't assume things man!

But need I remind you of "free speach zones"? Come on!! A sitting president, during election time, setting up areas far away from him, and those are the only places where our constitutional rights apply, are you joking?!

Free speech is not invitation to disrupt public events, come on man haven't you seen what these people do when Coulter speaks at a college campus, what do you think they would do if they had access like that to the president. You do you really think they would be civil?

And as for the in our life times comment I suggest you look into the fascist fairness doctrine which was in direct violation of the first amendment and which wasn't repealed until 1988 and finally totally abolished in 2000 and it wasn't until then that the right in this country finally regained its voice.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If you read the rest of that sentence, you'd see "in most Americans' lifetimes." I think the 87 and older crowd is pretty far out of the majority.

When was I defending liberals? Don't assume things man!

But need I remind you of "free speach zones"? Come on!! A sitting president, during election time, setting up areas far away from him, and those are the only places where our constitutional rights apply, are you joking?!

Quote from liberal sponsored bill S. 333 concerning the 'fairness' doctrine:

A broadcast licensee shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.

now I'll refer you to the 1st amendment:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Radio Act of 1927 ensures that anyone wanting to communicate over the public airwaves has got to recieve a government permit.

FCC summarized version of the Fairness Doctrine which was adobted by the FCC in 1949:

The fairness doctrine as developed by the commission imposes upon broadcasters a two pronged obligation. Broadcast licensees are required to provide coverage of vitally important controversial issues of interest in the community served by the licensee and to provide a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of contrasting viewpoints on such issues.

what this does is place the power of free speech over the airwaves into the hands of three government officials appointed by the president, confirmed by the senate, and given annual operating budgets by the congress.

Bill Ruder assistant secretary of commerce during the Kennedy administration:

"Our strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was to expensive to continue."

"The fairness doctrine was in the back of everyone's mind each time they thought about covering a controversial issue or taking an editorial stand." - David Barlett president of the radio-t.v. news directors association.

And the Red Lion V New London case.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Free speech is being able to protest outside, not 5 or 6 blocks away! Free speech is being able to let the president know when you're dissatisfied, and to be perfectly frank, no I wouldn't be civil with Bush, I would call his ass out. But last time I checked, there isn't a civility clause in the constitution.

Then you should reread the first amendment because it guarantees the right of the people to peacefully assemble.

yeah, I also forgot about McCarthy, but you get the point, he's not a fan of the first ammendment, or really 8 other of them, he seems to only really like #2.

I exaggerated, and forgot a few historical events, but that doesn't change the fact that there is plenty of evidence that he's against freedom of speech, and there is NO evidence that he supports it, other than little meaningless words in crappy meaningless speaches. If you want to ignore the evidence and take his word for it, go ahead, but you're disappointing me, cause I was just about certain you were smarter and less dogmatic than that.

. . . . . . . . .

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And peacefully means you can't voice opposition?
I never said I'd hit him, or even try, but I'd let him know what I think about what he's done. Last time I checked, that's not unpeaceful.

Come on now Galen you know as well as I that the war protesters don't peacefully assemble they incite riots, shout down people who are speaking, and violate their oppositions first amendment rights.

 

[tecoyah]

Come on now Galen you know as well as I that the war protesters don't peacefully assemble they incite riots, shout down people who are speaking, and violate their oppositions first amendment rights.

Funny....I have yet to see such a thing....perhaps you have some level of access to information I do not, as this was about a bad as I could find:

A New York protest a year ago drew more than 125,000 by official estimates. Although that's similar to organizers' estimate Saturday, organizers last year estimated that crowd at more than 250,000.

Last year's rally produced several clashes between demonstrators and police, but New York police reported just four arrests on disorderly conduct charges Saturday. There were scattered arrests in other U.S. cities as well


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-20-world-war-protests_x.htm


I think there was more violence at the WTO meeting, than all the Iraq War protests combined. Might try a different tactic there.....this one is dead in the water.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Right, because of all of the riots we've had because of this.:roll:
It's good to see that you're up to date on your talking points (you know full well that people with no legal authority cannot violate first ammendment rights, if you're still talking about that Anne Coulter thing).
Dude, there have been COUNTLESS protests about this war, and I want you to name me some that have turned into riots, enough to show that it is even slightly reasonable that that would be the reasult.

But I do like your logic, it's crafty "Violate their first ammendment rights so they don't have the chance to possibly do something that we can convince people without the ability to use logic is a violation of our first ammendment rights!"

Ya right dude what about the Seatle riots back in the 90's and the ones down in Miami? What about the fact that these war protesters violate our elected officials first amendment rights by shouting them down with their anti-war chants HAY HAY HO HO! And so forth, it's a two way street, war protesters don't peacefully assemble they assemble with the intent of disrupting public events. Ever hear of black blocks???

 

[Binary_Digit]

Ya right dude what about the Seatle riots back in the 90's and the ones down in Miami? What about the fact that these war protesters violate our elected officials first amendment rights by shouting them down with their anti-war chants HAY HAY HO HO! And so forth, it's a two way street, war protesters don't peacefully assemble they assemble with the intent of disrupting public events. Ever hear of black blocks???

Our elected officials have more of a voice than anyone when it comes to free speech. They are free to give speeches from the White House without answering questions, or on talk shows where the questions and cross-points are rigged. The only time protesters get that kind of attention is while protesting. What do you expect them to do, just stand there holding signs and not say anything?

I don't know what kind of disruption you're talking about, but if the elected official is only saying the same crap over and over, without addressing the protesters' arguments, then he deserves to be "disrupted."

 

[oldreliable67]

Keep in mind that we're talking about a president that has attacked the first ammendment more than any other president in most living Americans' lifetimes,

Care to substantiate that assertion? Or does it fall into the category of "thats my opinion"?

You're not a sopomore, or are you?

 

[oldreliable67]

The only time protesters get that kind of attention is while protesting. What do you expect them to do, just stand there holding signs and not say anything?

While there are some that would prefer that :roll: , no, thats not what anyone should expect them to do. There have been a number of court cases involving protesters and the rights of protesters, many of them dating from the civil rights movement beginning in the '60s. Almost all of the decisions in these cases (just google to find a bunch of 'em) center around the balancing of public safety with the right of assembly and free speech.

The right of police and/or municipal authorities to require permits for assemblies for demonstrations and to regulate marching routes, places of assembly, etc., are all a matter of court-tested law.

All that being said, isn't it blatantly hypocritical for one to first shout "free speech, free speech!" and then actively and purposely disrupt and prevent an attempt to speak by someone else?

 

[Caine]

used in recent memory and against his own citizens weapons of mass destruction[/B]. Left unfettered, there was no reason to expect a sudden behavioral shift. Do nothing and you face the continuance of a ME status quo encrusted by cynicism and marked by malignancy.

Im glad to know that over 20 years ago is "recent memory"

Im 22 and wasn't even alive then..... that reason should be thrown out of all reasons for invading...... it was 20 years ago for christs sake.... get over it....

Its like my father trying to punish me NOW, for poking him in the eye with a hairbrush when I was 4 years old....... thats ****ing ridiculous.

 

[Caine]

Come on now Galen you know as well as I that the war protesters don't peacefully assemble they incite riots, shout down people who are speaking, and violate their oppositions first amendment rights.

LOL.... This is almost as bad as people saying Ann Coulter's rights were violated.

She has a right to speak her mind.... we aren't forced to listen.. and the people who booed her... they had the right to boo and jeer at her because they didn't like her.

The right to free speech doesn't mean you have to be heard.

 

[Caine]

Ya right dude what about the Seatle riots back in the 90's and the ones down in Miami? What about the fact that these war protesters violate our elected officials first amendment rights by shouting them down with their anti-war chants HAY HAY HO HO! And so forth, it's a two way street, war protesters don't peacefully assemble they assemble with the intent of disrupting public events. Ever hear of black blocks???

Again... like its been said.. you can't violate someone's rights if you have no legal authority....

Your just refusing to listen.

 

[Caine]

While there are some that would prefer that :roll: , no, thats not what anyone should expect them to do. There have been a number of court cases involving protesters and the rights of protesters, many of them dating from the civil rights movement beginning in the '60s. Almost all of the decisions in these cases (just google to find a bunch of 'em) center around the balancing of public safety with the right of assembly and free speech.

The right of police and/or municipal authorities to require permits for assemblies for demonstrations and to regulate marching routes, places of assembly, etc., are all a matter of court-tested law.

All that being said, isn't it blatantly hypocritical for one to first shout "free speech, free speech!" and then actively and purposely disrupt and prevent an attempt to speak by someone else?

Again... they have the right to speak.... not the right to be heard......

 

[oldreliable67]

Caine,

First, if you're going to quote me, then quote me. If you're going to quote someone that I quoted, then quote someone that I quoted and give proper credit.

thats ****ing ridiculous

Speaking of ridiculous.

Again... they have the right to speak.... not the right to be heard......

You duck my point with this assertion? Way to go. Brilliant. Not.

 

[Caine]

Caine,

First, if you're going to quote me, then quote me. If you're going to quote someone that I quoted, then quote someone that I quoted and give proper credit.



Speaking of ridiculous.



You duck my point with this assertion? Way to go. Brilliant. Not.

First off, YOU were the one who said that Saddam's use of gas was in 'RECENT MEMORY".... If my quote came out looking jacked up for whatever reason I apologize... but I was refering to that, not anything else.

Next... The point I was addressing was the fact that you were trying to make someone look like a hypocrite.. The people protesting don't have to listen to others if they don't want to (unless its the police).... now... nobody has to listen to the dumb ass protestors either..... You have the right to free speech, not the right for everyone to shut-up or stop and listen to you.

 

[oldreliable67]

First off, YOU were the one who said that Saddam's use of gas was in 'RECENT MEMORY"

Check again. I was quoting by a well-known Repub, Peggy Noonan, who has been criticizing Bush a lot lately. If you want to disagree with her, then ok, disagree, but please be a bit more specific about with whom you are disagreeing.

Actually, in this case you can disagree with me as well. I would certainly consider Saddam's use of gas as well within recent memory. But if you don't consider it so, thats certainly your judgement to make.

You have the right to free speech, not the right for everyone to shut-up or stop and listen to you.

Ok, thats better. A reply instead of a duck. In fact, you're right. There is no 'right' involved in everyone shutting up and listening. The audience certainly does have the right to boo and hiss and stomp and jeer. But, would you not agree that there is a difference between booing etc because you disagree with the speaker's remarks versus setting out to deliberately shout the speaker down so completely that others present are deprived of the opportunity of which they had hoped to avail themselves? Do the others present not have rights?

 

[FinnMacCool]

Exactly. When are you libs going to understand that his message isn't going to change? Your hate and spin will not deter him fromdoing what is right.

When are you Bushelittes ever going to understand that repeating the same **** over and over again isn't going to change peoples minds?

I have a choice on whether I should
1) See whats right in front of me
or
2) Listen to Bush

I don't care what Bush says and I don't care what new catch phrases he adds. Until he actually answers some of my questions, I'm still not gonna believe a word he says.

 

[Caine]

Check again. I was quoting by a well-known Repub, Peggy Noonan, who has been criticizing Bush a lot lately. If you want to disagree with her, then ok, disagree, but please be a bit more specific about with whom you are disagreeing.

Actually, in this case you can disagree with me as well. I would certainly consider Saddam's use of gas as well within recent memory. But if you don't consider it so, thats certainly your judgement to make.



Ok, thats better. A reply instead of a duck. In fact, you're right. There is no 'right' involved in everyone shutting up and listening. The audience certainly does have the right to boo and hiss and stomp and jeer. But, would you not agree that there is a difference between booing etc because you disagree with the speaker's remarks versus setting out to deliberately shout the speaker down so completely that others present are deprived of the opportunity of which they had hoped to avail themselves? Do the others present not have rights?

Okay, in your instance many of our soldiers fighting overseas, myself included..... and many of everyones lives is just recent memory.... I get it... nearly 25 years is recent memory.... sure... gotcha....

Yep, they have rights.... but as neo-con christian righties like to tell me when it comes to issues of secularism.... The majority of the people there don't want to hear them... so the majority wins ...... :2wave: And the others don't have a say in it, and if they do... they are just complaining and bitching........ Am I right?????

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

LOL.... This is almost as bad as people saying Ann Coulter's rights were violated.

She has a right to speak her mind.... we aren't forced to listen.. and the people who booed her... they had the right to boo and jeer at her because they didn't like her.

The right to free speech doesn't mean you have to be heard.

The right to free speech does not mean you have the right to violate others freedom of speech or interrupt public meetings, you don't have to listen but you do have to let her speak.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Again... like its been said.. you can't violate someone's rights if you have no legal authority....

Your just refusing to listen.

If you're refusing to listen that's fine don't come to the function with the intent of disrupting it, how would you feel if I went to Michael Moores gatherings and started calling him a fat piece of **** lying hypocrit . . . . now there's an idea.

On the subject Michael Moore holds stocks in Halliburton. :2wave:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Again... they have the right to speak.... not the right to be heard......

Like it's been said the first amendment gives you the right to PEACFULLY assemble not interfere with public events, you don't have to listen but we have the right to speak without being shouted down by a bunch of know it all spoiled college libs.

 

[Caine]

Like it's been said the first amendment gives you the right to PEACFULLY assemble not interfere with public events, you don't have to listen but we have the right to speak without being shouted down by a bunch of know it all spoiled college libs.

Depends on if they got violent and starting throwing **** and stomping on people..... Thats not peaceful.

Shouting the retarded things they shout, however... is still peaceful....

And yes.....Even though I don't support the reason for our war... when I see war protestors..... I just laugh at them... :rofl

I couldn't imagine myself THAT outraged about it.... Then again, I have not lost a child or something.

 

[Navy Pride]

When are you Bushelittes ever going to understand that repeating the same **** over and over again isn't going to change peoples minds?

I have a choice on whether I should
1) See whats right in front of me
or
2) Listen to Bush

I don't care what Bush says and I don't care what new catch phrases he adds. Until he actually answers some of my questions, I'm still not gonna believe a word he says.

No one expects to change the monds of people that hate this president but judging by his approval rating which you libs always cite when its going down its changing the mind of some reasonable thinking people who don't have your hatred for him......

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Depends on if they got violent and starting throwing **** and stomping on people..... Thats not peaceful.

Shouting the retarded things they shout, however... is still peaceful....

And yes.....Even though I don't support the reason for our war... when I see war protestors..... I just laugh at them... :rofl

I couldn't imagine myself THAT outraged about it.... Then again, I have not lost a child or something.

How is shouting the retarted things they shout peaceful? Do you think it's right that people should have to speak over these jack asses? What about the person who's speaking rights?

 

[Navy Pride]

We have had protestors outside the Submarine Base at Bangor Washington disrupting traffic and causing problems.......The government is now taking them to court and charging them with obstructing traffic and disturbing the peace and hitting them with heavy fines..................Funny how those protests go away when it hits them in the wallet.....:roll:They seem to lose a lot of there so called dedication to their cause.............