quote:

---

There was nowhere to move. People were being crushed. They started flowing into the streets. Pleas to the officers, asking, “where to go” fell upon deaf ears. Instead, riot police fired pellets of cayenne pepper spray into the crowd. An old man fell and couldn’t get up. When a young man stopped to help, he was shot in the back with hard pepper spray balls. Children were hit with pepper spray. Deemed “Protesters” people were shoved and herded down the street by the menacing line of armed riot police, until out of the President’s ear-shot.

---

Oregon Police Fire On Bystanders Watching Presidential Motorcade

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

Also, the president didn't shoot the gun. He didn't even make the call. I love how you correlated it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acid:
Also, what is NOT in that article, is anything about clear and present danger. If the "protesters" where making any kinds of advances into the Bush rally then the police had every right to suppress them. Sure, the actions taken were too much, but that responsibility goes to the local swat/police squad.

---

"Also, the president didn't shoot the gun." -- true

"He didn't even make the call." -- how do you know that? Just because he doesn't lean out of his car and shout orders doesn't mean that measures to handle situations like this have not been discussed in great detail. You're probably right, maybe his staff are just over zealous. Still, the buck stops with him.

"Also, what is NOT in that article, is anything about clear and present danger." -- just because the article does not cover clear and present danger does not mean that there was any danger. I wasn't there, you weren't there so neither of us can comment on what happened.

"If the "protesters" where making any kinds of advances into the Bush rally then the police had every right to suppress them." -- the key word in that statement being "if".

"Sure, the actions taken were too much, but that responsibility goes to the local swat/police squad." -- I don't know who is to blame but the whole situation sounds like it was out of control. If anyone was posing a threat, that person / group should have been tackled instead of everyone. It's kinda like invading a country because you don't like the leader / dictator. No pattern there then. I can only assume that the "protestors" were let go when it was discovered they had no oil. OK, I've gotten off track now, I don't buy into the "war for oil" argument, well, not completely, but that's a different discussion.

I would also like to state for the record that regardless of whose motorcade it was, I would find the events in that story equally disturbing. I'm neither a Bush fan nor a Kerry fan.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acid:
You do know that at either candidates speeches that people are not allowed to protest within a given distance?

Also, the president didn't shoot the gun. He didn't even make the call. I love how you correlated it.

Also, what is NOT in that article, is anything about clear and present danger. If the "protesters" where making any kinds of advances into the Bush rally then the police had every right to suppress them. Sure, the actions taken were too much, but that responsibility goes to the local swat/police squad.

---

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I am aware of the free speech zones, and they are unconstitutional. This wasn't even a convention or speech, Acid. According to this woman, all but maybe one of these people were peaceably assembled and exercising their freedom to protest.

I didn't have to correlate anything. It's common sense that the president and the secret service would be fully informed of the policies local law enformement would conform to. As you brought up, the president has instated zones where the 1st ammendment doesn't apply. He doesn't respect that right, and has said himself that there aught to be limits on freedom, so even if he by some stretch of the imagination had no idea protestors were selectively being shut up, we know that he would probably agree with these actions because he has said and done as much in the past.

Now, I read that agree that the actions taken were too much, but you seem to endorse those actions in the rest of your post. Where exactly do you stand?

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Max:
I can only assume that the "protestors" were let go when it was discovered they had no oil.

---

lol!

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

I'm sick and tired of this administration and it's 1950's mentality toward free speech and censorship.

A moron president running our country based on his faith.

"I think I know what god would want me to do."

"I believe that God wants me to be president"

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

The article didn't give enough info (as max put forth).

Mute - I have friends who have gone to Kerry rallies and protest and were pushed out by cops. Whats the deal with that? Its not just Bush, its the overall idea that people should be given their time to speak.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acid:
The article didn't give enough info (as max put forth).

Mute - I have friends who have gone to Kerry rallies and protest and were pushed out by cops. Whats the deal with that? Its not just Bush, its the overall idea that people should be given their time to speak.

Freedom of Speech is limited since only one person can speak at one time (like my VERY liberal political science teacher said). I personally think that if you are going to protest, do it after the event. Protest your heart out for all I give a shit.

---

This first person account gave enough information to demonstrate that a) excessive force was once again used to shut peaceful Bush protesters the hell up, and that b) Bush has chosen to allow if not promote the continuing use of excessive police force upon his protesters. I know that the rnc and dnc both had a so-called free speech cage set up. That was unconstitutional as well, but for different reasons. Protesters were restricted from having a reasonable chance at having an audience or dialog with convention goers by placing them in a cage far away from the main route conventioneers took while coming into the building. That is a violation of free speech.

On the other hand, the account linked above involved a motorcade passing crowds of people situated along the side of the road. The president was not giving a speech, so his freedom of speech wasn't being violated. No, it was the protesters (not supporters) whose freedom of speech was abrogated that day. Bush protesters have been prejudged as terrorists and treated as such. Bush himself said that you are with him or with the terrorists. His actions are consistent with the spirit of his rhetoric. You say that this is not just about Bush, but it is. Bush is the president and sets policy, and is supposed to set an example for us and the world.

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

quote:

---

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

---

...

quote:

---

One of the most violent government responses to an antiwar protest occurred when local police and the federally funded California Anti-Terrorism Task Force fired rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders at the Port of Oakland, injuring a number of people.

When the police attack sparked a geyser of media criticism, Mike van Winkle, the spokesman for the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center told the Oakland Tribune, "You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against that is a terrorist act."

---

Please read.

Quarantining dissent How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech

[ 10-21-2004: Message edited by: Wintermute ]

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

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

quote:

---

If the "protesters" where making any kinds of advances into the Bush rally then the police had every right to suppress them. Sure, the actions taken were too much

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snag:
ok, fine acid.

You essentially said then they had every right to do what they did, but they went too far. How the hell can you not see the contradiction there?

---

To be fair I think I know what he's saying. On one hand it can be perfectly reasonable to carry out an act but there is a line where it becomes unreasonable. I don't know for sure but I think that's what Acid is saying? e.g. it's OK to protect yourself if someone breaks into your house but the law may have something to say about it if you beat the person to death with a 3 iron over a period of 2 hours. Regardless of the contradiction or lack thereof, it's still out of order. I understand that the prez is very important and they have to protect him but what about the people, who protects them?

Who will protect us from the police?

[ 10-21-2004: Message edited by: Mad Max ]

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

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

edit - max is right.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acid:
And Kerry has it done too. I don't see why in the fuck it is my issue when both candidates have it done and I just accept the fact.

You're just a dick, plain and simple. Why don't we make an Anti-Life forum for you to complain about EVERYTHING.

---

I'm sorry you've placed yourself on the defensive without a weapon other than calling names out of impotent rage, but it's really uncalled for.

I have seen no reports of Kerry putting down protesters and violating their freedom of speech which is why I haven't mentioned him. Feel free to post a link if you have something to substantiate your claim that Kerry is guilty of things documented in the second link I posted.

What I know is that the man who holds the highest office in the most powerful country on earth set a precedent which all politicians in this country can feel safe and comfortable following. Even if Kerry were to follow Bush's lead, and suppress voters' free speech, it wouldn't justify it as you seem to imply. "Kerry has it done too."

It's clear Bush (and if you present evidence, maybe even Kerry) is guilty of violating protesters' free speech with an iron glove. If you agree with his actions, than just say so, and quit making excuses and false justification for what Bush has done.

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

quote:

---

Police said most protesters cooperated with orders to clear the sidewalk between Third and Fifth streets, but about five males who became aggressive had to be "pushed back" by members of the Mobile Response Team, which includes Jackson County sheriff’s deputies and Oregon State Police troopers.

Several protesters, including Barker’s roommate Michael Moss, 29, were reportedly shot by pepper balls fired by members of the MRT squad.

Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters could not be reached for comment Saturday.

Barker, whose photo appeared on the front page of Friday’s Mail Tribune, said he did not witness any aggressive behavior. He said he also missed seeing anyone being shot with pepper balls.

Although he feels protesters’ right to peacefully assemble was violated, Barker said police were friendly with him following his arrest.

"They were pretty nice, actually," he said.

---

quote:

---

Heck.. I doubt this would happen if Kerry were president.

---

DNC protest pit:

Think about it.

quote:

---

This first person account gave enough information to demonstrate that a) excessive force was once again used to shut peaceful Bush protesters the hell up, and that b) Bush has chosen to allow if not promote the continuing use of excessive police force upon his protesters.

---

Yes, but this "first person account" gives different information:

He did not witness any aggresive behavior nor did he see anyone shot by pepper balls. He also noted the cops were friendly and nice.

All I'm doing is showing how people can have different recollections of how actual events took place.

quote:

---

A few weeks before my father died, he woke me in the wee hours of the morning. He needed to talk. He was worried about Attorney General John Ashcroft and the destruction of American civil liberties. I comforted my father, believing he was delusional from medications. I was wrong.

---

I mean come on, she starts off her story with her dead father's last words. Dramatic? Yes!

quote:

---

Honking cars filled with Bush supporters were left alone. A honking car full of Kerry supporters was stopped by police on its way out of town.

---

So in all the chaos, she still had time to determine which cars were filled with bush supporters and which had kerry supporters?

quote:

---

If I could talk to my father today, I would say, “I am sorry Daddy for doubting you.”

---

A perfect ending to such a sad tale.

quote:

---

All I'm doing is showing how people can have different recollections of how actual events took place.

---

Of course they are going to have different recollections because they are different people. I saw nothing in those 2 accounts that conflicted, so if you're trying to discredit the first person by quoting this second person, I don't think you've succeeded.

quote:

---

I mean come on, she starts off her story with her dead father's last words. Dramatic? Yes!

---

It's consistent with the rest of her story which is definitely dramatic.

quote:

---

So in all the chaos, she still had time to determine which cars were filled with bush supporters and which had kerry supporters?

---

I think the big signs with the the words VOTE FOR KERRY or VOTE FOR BUSH sticking out of the cars windows would have made it fairly obvious. Seriously, you're being ridiculous if you are saying this part of her story is implausible.

[ 10-22-2004: Message edited by: Wintermute ]

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

The police state all the protesters were peaceful except for 5 that got unruly and would not move off the sidewalk.

The woman states there were so many people around, no one could move off the sidewalks and pleaded with the police on where to move.

I think she mentioned Jacksonville has a population of a little over two thousand, so I'm assuming the entire town and perhaps some surrounding communities must have been there at the time to make things so crowded that no one could move when asked.

Like I said, I wasn't there, but I'm through editing

quote:

---

Of course they are going to have different recollections because they are different people. I saw nothing in those 2 accounts that conflicted, so if you're trying to discredit the first person by quoting this second person, I don't think you've succeeded.

---

So.. let's go ahead and talk about Bush. Did you read the second link? Bush has made it his policy to get protesters out of sight and earshot when he comes through. Kerry would be an unAmerican asshole if he did that. Bush does do that... Is this a good thing or a bad thing? You don't have to defend ALL of his actions and still vote for him, Outtie.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Acid:
No, Kerry is innocent but Bush is guilty of having freedom of speech violated. They both butter their side of the bread and you can't deny it.

---

You haven't provided a link, so I can't make a comment on any facts. I think I've made it clear that I am against such actions regardless of political party. On the other hand, you seem to support both candidates' suppression of free speech because all you do is point fingers at someone else and make excuses. Either that, or you're to afraid to admit that the guy you support is capable of such a fucked up thing. You won't face the truth of the matter.

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

quote:

---

I think the big signs with the the words VOTE FOR KERRY or VOTE FOR BUSH sticking out of the cars windows would have made it fairly obvious.

---

Oh, I didn't see anything about the big signs sticking out of the car windows. Yes, if that is the case, then perhaps I was a bit "ridiculous" in pointing it out.

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

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

I'm in the College Republicans and they said they have people there to escort protestors out of the Bush Daughters event.

quote:

---

I saw nothing in those 2 accounts that conflicted, so if you're trying to discredit the first person by quoting this second person, I don't think you've succeeded.

---

The only thing I tried to show was the lack of drama in one and the abundance of it in the other. Drama doesn't always equal truth. You as well realize that the two accounts did not conflict each other, but you felt the guy was "too easy". So you prefer the drama apparently.

Start off with dead pops, end with dead pops. Hey, I think she had good effect.

Anyway, what Bush had done goes beyond merely quieting people during speeches. He makes sure the police clear public area of protesters so he doesn't have to see or hear them when he is driven through. He doesn't even want to SEE them. Anyway, apparently it doesn't enter into your mind as being something very bad, so I will digress. Maybe one day you'll be in a position to protest something, you're rights to speech if you know what they are by that time will be stomped on, and it will all click into place.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by outrider:
The only thing I tried to show was the lack of drama in one and the abundance of it in the other. Drama doesn't always equal truth. You as well realize that the two accounts did not conflict each other, but you felt the guy was "too easy". So you prefer the drama apparently.

Start off with dead pops, end with dead pops. Hey, I think she had good effect.

PS: I don't care for Bush or Kerry, just so you know.

---

I don't prefer either account. They both seem pretty credible to me. Like I said, they are different accounts by 2 different people. They are going to be different. Anything else I can repeat for you?

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

Edit: actually, I may be wrong, I can't tell if those are the above ground tracks or route 93. Either way, they're both coming down.

[ 10-22-2004: Message edited by: Mad Max ]

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

You created a thread and quoted a woman talking about people being crushed and children hit with pepper spray.

I reply with quotes from another person that was there. Arrested in fact. Then first you accuse me of trying to discredit the woman by doing so, then you come back at me with this:

quote:

---

They are going to be different. Anything else I can repeat for you?

---

After I already stated:

quote:

---

Yes, but this "first person account" gives different information

---

I can only assume you do not like having your girl's dramatic writing style questioned in the least bit, otherwise you seem to get defensive. Sarcastic even. Why you even went so far as to accuse me of trolling.

quote:

---

You created a thread and quoted a woman talking about people being crushed and children hit with pepper spray.

---

I quoted that from the article, yes.

quote:

---

I reply with quotes from another person that was there. Arrested in fact.

---

Yes you did.

quote:

---

Then first you accuse me of trying to discredit the woman by doing so...

---

This is where you're wrong. I said "...if you're trying to discredit the first person by quoting this second person, I don't think you've succeeded." No accusation was made. I've noticed that this is where you go wrong when getting into these little debates with me. You attribute things such as accusation to me when I use the conditional 'if'. How can someone have a real discussion if the other person doesn't pay attention or reads something into it that's not there?

quote:

---

then you come back at me with this: quote:They are going to be different. Anything else I can repeat for you?

After I already stated: quote:Yes, but this "first person account" gives different information

---

For the 3rd time. They are different accounts by different people. They are bound to be different. We've already established that there was no conflicting information in these accounts, so I fail to see your point in repeating that they are different. Perhaps you are trying to say you believe one account, but not the other?? If so, spit it out.

quote:

---

I can only assume you do not like having your girl's dramatic writing style questioned in the least bit, otherwise you seem to get defensive.

---

I have done nothing to minimize or disparage the account of the second person. I didn't even know that account existed before you posted it. I have gone as far as to say they don't conflict, and actually seem to support one another. How can you take this to mean that I favor either one?

quote:

---

Sarcastic even. Why you even went so far as to accuse me of trolling.

---

If I'm sarcastic and think you are trolling, it's because I believe that you question things that are common sense or at least plausible. Specifically, it is plausible that the people in the cars had signs making it clear who they supported. This was said tongue in cheek which is why I began the next sentence, "Seriously, though..." or something like that. So, I was half joking, but also making a point that you question things that don't need to be questioned. I may be second thinking this now, but at the time I didn't think you were a complete moron, and gave you the benefit of the doubt, and chalked up your apparent stupidity to your sense of humor.

quote:

---

Yet you state you "don't prefer either account"

---

Yes, it's true. I don't see anything wrong with either account. In your opinion, should I favor one?

quote:

---

Just because I didn't read the woman's story and scream "Bush is bullshit and that woman proves it!" doesn't mean I don't agree with you mute about free speech.

---

Not sure where you read this, but of course not...

[ 10-22-2004: Message edited by: Wintermute ]

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

quote:

---

In your opinion, should I favor one?

---

Please, mute.

Anyway..Ok, just for the sake of my humor and/ or stupidity, whichever it may be, I will go along with you and assume all the cars had big signs in the windows. K? Not those pesky little bumper stickers so hard to see during brutal police actions.

Bumper stickers. You got me. Nailed to the keyboard. That was my whole reason for posting in this thread in the first place.

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

quote:

---

You attribute things such as accusation to me when I use the conditional 'if'. How can someone have a real discussion if the other person doesn't pay attention or reads something into it that's not there?

---

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

Charleston isn't much now other than the rain, and an idea about when to get a haircut and what to think.

Yesterday was funny for a few minutes wasn't it? I was wondering if bush/kerry moments weren't funny too, as I carefully read the post by Wintermute and looked closely at many internet photos. Then as if by magic the little girl was on her way to take a black couple to Folly Beach - where I thought I'd live in peace, and write - and quickly I was shown what a piece it is.

I'll be flying to Washington DC on Tuesday for slightly more than 60 USD. And there'll I'll be until I'm either allowed to work for those USDs, or the fares to Europe are lowered.

Bratislava, Budapest, Romania...

Well I don't know those places. I know that I've collected quite a lot of lovely wears and sparkle and I was right in the first place - the tan isn't nice. My feet are somewhat ragged from those bus trips I think - the skin separated, one small left toe is barely hanging on.

Should I live 5 blocks form The White House or in the place "surrounded by poorhouse restaurants and clubs”???

I packed lightly. I hope Washington DC isn't so "preppy."

If people like you DID vote for parties other than the two major ones, maybe some day they WOULD stand a chance in an election. Not ever if people act like this.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

If there are 3rd parties on your state's ballot that you can stand behind, than vote for them. Vote your conscience. Make a statement that you don't agree with Bush or Kerry. If your candidates aren't on the ballot than cast a write-in vote, and write your guy's name in. If your state is like mine and there is only Bush & Kerry and NO write-ins, than at least vote for your congress members. They make the laws that govern us as well as approve presidential nominations. Don't waste your vote by not using it.

Oh, and... check out Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for President.

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

Ralph Nader is a perfect example of someone who simply hurts the democrats by allowing republicans to buy votes. What an idiot he has turned out to be.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cacophonous:
I agree that everyone should vote however voting for some third party is useless.

---