Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
First I want to repsond to Oracle's post. I agree with Oracle 100%. I agree with everything he said. He actually took the words right out my mouth.
In response to Jessica's post, I think the most important part of the whole article were these quotes, "Such efforts to segregate or diminish dissent are hardly new to American politics. The ACLU has sued several Presidents over attempts to silence opposition, as in 1997, when President Clinton tried to prevent protesters from lining his inaugural parade route."
This has been going on for years. This is nothing new. I'm not necessarily in favor of it. It just depends on the circumstances of the event.
I volunteered for a candidate running for Mayor of Los Angeles several years ago. His opponent was giving a speech in a small room at a local health clinic. I went there and was considering protesting. The people putting on the event figured out that I was not a supporter of this candidate. If I would have started yelling or protesting during his speech, it would have been very disruptive. They made me promise that I would behave myself. If I didn't promise that I would behave myself, I would have been asked to leave. I had no problem with this. The truth of the matter is it would have been completely inappropriate for me to disrupt his speech. They didn't even need to make me promise to behave. When I saw the setting, I could see how disruptive and inappropriate it would have been for me to yell or anything like that. I would never have the nerve to do something like that.
With regard to your having no problem with being searched at the airport, then that means that you agree that we don't need to follow the Constitution to a "T". The airport is a public place. Technically they should not search you if they don't have probable cause. We all know that it is very important for them to search everyone at the airport in the times we live in, regardles of the wording of the Constitution. I'm glad you agree with me about that.
With regard to the two women who were arrested, how can you say that they didn't do anything wrong? You weren't there. You don't know what happened. I don't either. The article doesn't give any details. Authorities say the women refused to obey reasonable security restrictions. The women disagree. I don't know all the facts but from the small amount of information that I have, I would tend to believe the authorities. If the authorities were arrresting everyone with dissenting opinions, how come those two women were the only ones arrested? I'm sure they were mouthing off or something. I don't know what the exact laws are but I do know that it's not very smart to mouth off to cops. If you start swearing at a cop or calling him names, there is probably a good chance that you will be arrested. I'm not even talking about political rallies. I'm talking about any situation when you deal with police. If they give you some type of order and you disobey it or you mouth off to them, there is a good chance you will arrested. There is also a good chance that the charges will be dropped.
|
Well, the charges of the two women were dropped. Use some common sense. If the charges were dropped, then did they really do anything wrong. Again, you didn't read the article. They were school teachers. They couldn't have afforded to be arrested, because if the charges weren't dropped, they would have lost their jobs. Also, I don't think that people should be arrested just for mouthing off to a police officer because some law enforcement officers are very rude to these people first, especially some of the ones that you see on COPS on TV.
I don't dislike Bush, and I think that he has made some good decisions regarding everything that has happened. It is very hard to be a war time president. I know that he is only doing what he thinks is right. However, what he might be taking what he thinks is right a little too far.
Again, flying isn't a right but a privilege, and I don't have a problem with being searched at the airport. Stuff like that is completely necessary, but some of the other things that the government is doing isn't. It's not like we're Nazi Germany, but we are on a downhill slope, and it needs to stop before it gets worse. I have also cited numerous articles that prove that the government is infringing on certain citizen's rights in certain aspects. You just tend to look past those points and ignore them completely.
Let me ask you a question. Government investigations found that the oil companies were not doing anything wrong in regards to gas prices. Have you noticed that gas prices are going down in your area right now? Now, has any major thing happened as to why gas prices have been going down? I know that they found the new oil reserve in Texas, but that won't be operatable for many years. I know the real reason that gas prices are going down. It is all common sense. Elections are coming up in November. The government is playing with us. I guarantee that gas prices will go back up right after the elections are over with. When the gas prices do go back up after the elections, there will be your proof that the government is playing and toying with it's citizens in certain aspects.
Also, here is the part of the article that said Bush has been a lot harsher on protesters than on previous presidents. This information was collected from political scientists.
"In my mind, it all started with Nixon. He was the first presidential candidate to really make an effort to control their image and disrupt public interruption at events," said Cary Covington, a political science professor at the University of Iowa.
But political experts say the 2004 Bush campaign rewrote the playbook for organizing campaign rallies.
At the Republican National Convention in New York City and at other campaign stops, security segregated protesters in designated "free speech zones" set up at a significant distance from each rally. To get into events headlined by Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, supporters were required to obtain tickets through GOP channels or sign loyalty oaths.
Political experts agree Bush 2004 went to greater lengths than Kerry officials — or any past campaign — to choreograph a seamless, partisan rally free of the embarrassing moments that attract media attention.