Mcbush........

1st amendment: freedom of speech (as long as those in power around you are ok with it). If she was in a public place there should have been no problem methinks. (me = not lawyer) and allows for grounds of lawsuit against the city for restricting her right to peaceable assembly and protest... "Okiedokie then, here we go, Clarice."
 
Yes, I see a problem with the ticket part of the story. They should have arrested her and then forced her to post a bond to ensure that she would appear in court. And another thing, she should have come up with a more creative sign, the freakin' unoriginal-boring moroon.
 
Kinda makes you laugh when you think of the sign carrying pieces of excrement that met our Vietnam Vets when they arrived back home that weren`t ticketed or arrested:barf:
 
According to the constitution, as currently enforced by the Secret Service, free speech cages are provided; far away from any cameras or candidates' photo ops.

pic1096.jpg


Furthermore, government employees encouraged to further deride violators of this policy, for any and all irrelevant aspects: lack of originality, age, dress, etc. Name calling is encouraged. :rolleyes:
 
Well I guess the problem was the sign, if there was a prohibitition against signs, all well and good, leave the sign and proceed inside. But I do believe that her rights were infringed upon and I am guessing she has a pretty good case against the city.

On a similiar point, is anyone really influenced by those or any type of signs.

I know I am not, do people think "My sign will change someones mind." Or do they believe it will open up a dialouge with someone so that conversation will change or influence a person.
 
The only problem that I have is you trying to give us just the inflammatory parts of the story and not all of the facts. Clearly people have a right to speech, but that doesn't mean that they have the right to disrupt public events and interfere with other people's speech, even if the other person happens to be a candidate. Everyone else at those meetings wants to hear and dialogue with the candidates. Why should a few people whose only goal is to disrupt and embarrass the candidate be allowed to take over the event?

And if you were honest about the story instead of just doing your "I love Obama" thing, you'd have admitted that the woman was part of a contingent of people who came there in costumes and with signs and noisemakers just to wreck the meeting.

Free speech means that anyone in America can stand on a corner or rent a hall and express themselves. It doesn't mean that they can crash other people's events and disrupt them. Frankly this is the sort of thing that Libertarians and LaRouchies have always done and it's one of the reasons that they're about as welcome at public events as a turd on the buffet table.
 
Re: post #9. I bet someone in security got reamed for allowing that guy with the viet vets cap to ask an embarrassing question.

Security policies have gone far beyond considerations for safety and maintaining the peace during video-taped "town halls", speeches, etc.

Anyone can be cited for disturbing the peace, but that is no longer good enough. Every aspect of the event must now be controlled by political hacks.

Techniques: The audiences to these events are packed with pre-vetted supporters. Next, folks are selected to be the video "backdrop" for the speaker, based on some notion about "diversity", the campaign staff is trying to hype that particular day. Questions are written down in advance, screened and selected so as not to conflict with the latest talking points. Folks with possibly troubling signs or T-shirts are barred entrance, under a misused threat of "trespassing", or false "disturbing the peace" charge. The charges are usually dropped, but the goal of sanitizing the event from adverse incidents is achieved. Much more political misuse of Secret Service, as private police goes on.

My photo of Braveheart in a cage, was meant tongue-in cheek. However, it is not far from the truth; we'll all be hearing much more about "free speech cages", before the conventions are through.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/more_on_the_free_speech_cages_at_the_democrat_convention/
 
Did you watch the video? Those in costume were clearly visible.
Click to expand...

I saw one guy. He wasn't escorted out by police with the librarian was he. Yes he was out side also for pictures. but the police were not escorting him out. I guess you didn't see that the one guy took off his costume as the librarian was being escorted outside. Also do you know for a fact that the one guy even knows the librarian? No I didn't think so.
 
Techniques: The audiences to these events are packed with pre-vetted supporters. Next, folks are selected to be the video "backdrop" for the speaker, based on some notion about "diversity", the campaign staff is trying to hype that particular day. Questions are written down in advance, screened and selected so as not to conflict with the latest talking points. Folks with possibly troubling signs or T-shirts are barred entrance, under a misused threat of "trespassing", or false "disturbing the peace" charge. The charges are usually dropped, but the goal of sanitizing the event from adverse incidents is achieved. Much more political misuse of Secret Service, as private police goes on.

VERY TRUE!!

That's what McCain gets for having a forum like that.
I'll bet the Clintons and Obama are laughing like mad at that clip.
McCain (or his people) should know better than to not have a SCRIPTED Q&A session with hand picked questions and questioners.
I never saw that happen to the other candidates because they (or their people) make sure it doesn't.
Perception, here we go again, McCain is famous for cutting the fat off of bills and NOT voting for bills that are FULL of pork.
What looks like a great bill on the surface, might not be, it may have so many special interest riders on it that it costs us a fortune---and again, McCain has done more than anyone to watch OUR money.
Perception is what GOTCHA politics is all about though---maybe if people actually read the ENTIRE bill, they will see why McCain did not vote for it.
Sound bites can be so mis leading for BOTH sides.
McCains problem? He shouldn't put himself out there like that.
Never saw Clintons questioned about whitewater or Vince Foster or ANYTHING like that in a town meeting.
WISE up John---play the game!!

Dipper
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top