home
Only Those Who Agree With the President May Hear Him Speak | 100 comments (100 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Jim (none / 0) (#38)
by Claw on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 12:52:10 PM EST
I fail to see the correlation between my Jefferson quote and duels.  We shouldn't have freedom now because we can't have duels?  Is that it?  I'm also not sure where you're getting your evidence that people were more courteous in Jefferson's day.  
That's really neither here nor there.  The point is that these people were removed for having anti-war bumper stickers.  They were removed for something they hadn't done or tried to do.  I still--god help me--have a Kerry sticker on my car.  Do I make the cut for hearing the President speak?

[ Parent ]
That's OK, Claw (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by Al on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:39:03 PM EST
PPJ is just trying to find something to object to, without looking as if he's against freedom of expression when it comes to Dear Leader.

[ Parent ]
Claw (none / 0) (#45)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 01:25:00 PM EST
Well, it is unusual that edger and I agree on anything, but we both agree that the purpose of their attendance was to disrupt and get publicity.

All of the crocodile tears being shed are just that, crocodile tears.

People are much less courteous today than then. Much less  so than even 30 years ago.

[ Parent ]

ppj is a f**king liar! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Sailor on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 03:35:19 PM EST
Well, it is unusual that edger and I agree on anything, but we both agree that the purpose of their attendance was to disrupt and get publicity.
great job Jeralyn, you consistently support ppj's lying and attacking other commenters. ppj has broken your rules over and over and over.

I want my donations back. The money I donated to you. The money I could ill afford.  The money I thought would defray your bandwidth expenses.

But since you get so much $$ from advertising, and you consistently allow ppj to violate your own commenting rules, I think you should refund my money that I have donated.

[ Parent ]

Every good site needs a TOKEN (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Freewill on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 07:43:44 PM EST
What kind of fun would it be if this site didn't have a TOKEN WATERBOY from the other team.

Since I didn't call his entire RACE tokens or water boys this can not in any way be construed as a racists comment according to PPJ.

Try as he might he only encourages more and more individuals to stray further away from ever becoming conservative or neocon minded. His arguments are crafted for him by daily talking point memos and he tries to mimic every line Dear Leader feeds the loyalists.

Instead of wanting him banished please consider this: "He is a great practice dummy to actually find out how the authoritarians would respond to questions."

Besides, I truly believe this Administration has moles all over the blogs doing things like PPJ does. One less mole wouldn't change a thing.

[ Parent ]

Freewill doesn't know (none / 0) (#84)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:01:39 AM EST
Since "waterboys" aren't a race, you would have been incorrect if you had.

Can you get nothing right??

BTW - Here's a deal. First the fine print.

I am an ex-Democrat now an Independent. I call myself a Social Liberal who is a strong supporter of national defense. Think Scoop Jackson, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ. My positions supporting gay rights, minorities, womens' rights, national health care, tax reform, drug law rationalization, etc. are well known to those on this blog who have been around awhile, and these positions have been stated for about 4 years, and are availanle in the archives.

Now, since you most likely won't believe what I wrote, you can go to the archives. Or, I will do it for you and provide links. One for each $20.00 you contribute to TL. (Somebody has to pick up sailor's slack.)

You really should hang around long enough to know what is what before you start pounding the old keyboard. It will help prevent you from making even more mistakes.

Have a nice day.

BTW - Your problem is that you think supporting the war and being a liberal are mutally exclusive positions. They aren't.

BTW - "Lefties" and "Righties" are on the same coin, just oppositie sides on a few issues.

[ Parent ]

As usual (none / 0) (#85)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:17:43 AM EST
you're disconnected from reality. Freewill has already seen through you, ppj - you just haven't noticed.

[ Parent ]
edger (none / 0) (#86)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:20:25 AM EST
I make you the same offer my lippy friend.

Have a nice day.

BTW - You ready to retract what yoy wrote as a mistake, or are you going to continue to agree with me?

Have a nice day, edger.

And remember. Edges are sharp things to set on.

[ Parent ]

Yes, I wouldn't want to (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Dark Avenger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:05:19 AM EST
set a while with edger.

Wouldn't be prudent.

Sea Monkey wouldn't have caught that, PPJ, but you should download it and check it out anyway, it'll work with AOL :)

[ Parent ]

DA (none / 0) (#95)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:50:08 AM EST
Set a while?? With edger?

Heck, I don't even want to be around him. Or you.

yadda yadda

[ Parent ]

I'm having a wonderful day, ppj! (none / 0) (#87)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:33:21 AM EST
Watching you self-destruct and watching the continuing implosion of the bush administration always makes my day. :>)

You try to have a day too, ok? Heh!

[ Parent ]
edger (none / 0) (#89)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:54:52 AM EST
Well thank you edger. There's nothing like enjoying a cup of coffeee on the deck of my palatial retirement compound, catfish pond and BBQ stand using my new lap top in its wireless mode to communicate with one of the workers (??) of the world working away...

Yes, life is good. Aren't you glad I didn't take your suggestion?

Posted by edger at September 3, 2005 01:04 PM.......

....This may get me kicked off this site, and I'll probably regret saying this later, but here goes...

Jim... you know how to use a gun?

Bullets are cheap, and plentiful, you can get lots of 'em almost anywhere if you are out of 'em...

You only need one, though...

If I had done that, who else would here to point out the flaws in your arguments??

[ Parent ]

Hah! (none / 0) (#90)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:01:44 AM EST
I guess I was wrong again, ppj.

You obviously have a endless supply of them. You keep using them to shoot yourself in both feet.

Thanks for being you! ;>)

[ Parent ]
edger (none / 0) (#96)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:53:25 AM EST
No problem big guy.

Now excuse me. One of the solid gold bathroom fixtures has been leaking and one of the worker bees have showed up to fix it.

Sigh...... I do hate to be disrupted.

[ Parent ]

Yes, it's rough (none / 0) (#97)
by Edger on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 12:11:21 PM EST
For them that must obey authority That they do not respect in any degree Who despise their jobs, their destinies Speak jealously of them that are free Cultivate their flowers to be Nothing more than something They invest in.

[ Parent ]
edger (none / 0) (#98)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:24:54 PM EST
Please. No more of these.... I am crying and crying over you.

[ Parent ]
Hi (none / 0) (#100)
by Freewill on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 01:35:28 PM EST
Peek-a-boo

[ Parent ]
Sailor (none / 0) (#59)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 05:55:39 PM EST
Here is what he wrote.

Booting Michael Casper and Jay Klinkerman out of a speech by shrub impinges
"on the rights of of others to hear/see what they had come to hear/see" ...which was, how many people who have enough brains to oppose the war in Iraq showed up for the speech and the country's right to witness shrubs petulant little boy response and have it recorded for posterity by the media in attendance.

This is what I wrote in response:

.You are saying that these two wanted to see how many showed up... no... they wanted to disrupt the proceedings for publicity purposes. Oh. Okay. Well, yes. I agree.

Now, let's see.

which was, how many people who have enough brains to oppose the war in Iraq showed up for the speech

That certainly says what I wrote. And edger obviously means that he thinks they were looking for how many agreed with them. Now, if you are just going to listen, why do you need to know who many people agree with you and could join with you?

Then:

the country's right to witness shrubs petulant little boy response and have it recorded for posterity by the media in attendance.

Here again, edger makes a point. "petulant little boy response" and "have it recorded..."

petulant

insolent or rude in speech or behavior
2 : characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor :

Now, if there was to be no disruption, in edger's mind, why would there be a petulant response?

edger clearly states that they showed up to see how many of like minded was there, do what was needed to be done to provoke a response and "have it recorded."

That clearly agrees with my position.

sailor, you might try reading before you jump off the cliff.

BTW - I have made no attack on edger, and my comments have been calm and reaonable.

Unlike your nasty ill-tempered and inaccurate remarks.

Have a nice day.

[ Parent ]

Really? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Claw on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:19:21 PM EST
Again, the courteous thing is kind of irrelevant.  But by my math, 30+ years ago people were having fire hoses turned on them and being attacked by police dogs.  This, to me, seems discourteous.  
A few things:
  1. We don't like to charge people for things they might do (without attempt which is in itself a crime).  Why?  Well, one reason is that most people aren't mind readers.  
  2. We have a long and, I think, distinguished tradition of civil disobedience.  And that is making the HUGE assumption that these people were there to do anything other than hear a speech by their President.
  3. You have not addressed my question as to whether or not I am eligible to hear Bush speak.  I have a bumper sticker on my car that demonstrates the fact that I do not like our current President.  By your logic, I am a prime threat to disrupt his speech.
  4. I don't know if you've ever defended the rights of those who wish to protest abortion clinics. If you ever have, I fail to see how your argument here squares with that.  They are extremely disruptive and abusive.  And they are abusing people who don't have the secret service at their disposal.  


[ Parent ]
Claw... The truth comes out (none / 0) (#65)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:51:25 PM EST
  1. I have never said they should be charged.

  2. What is civil about disrupting other people's right to move about, attend events, etc?? Do they have no rights?

  3. I was not aware I was supposed to answer all of your questions.

Wnat the rest of the story?

The three, who are members of the Denver Progressives (search) political activist group, did have T-shirts tucked under their business attire calling for Bush to "stop the lies" but a plan to brandish them during the program had been abandoned earlier and the shirts never saw the light of day, Recht said.

Sure......

"That's my story and I'm sticking to it." ;-)

Secret Service (search) in Denver told the three the next day that the bumper sticker on their car, which read "No More Blood for Oil," a common anti-Iraq war slogan, triggered the ejection.

And the T-Shirts??? Oh. They had them hid?? Gee, it just gets worse for these folks.

Link

Pretty simple. They had tickets. If they had tickets their names were checked as a matter of security. The check showed their politics. They show up with T shirts under their suits...

And got asked to leave.

Well, duhhhhhhhhh. More evidence that edger and I are aright. Way to go edger! What a team we are!

5. Why would you think that I have defended the rights of those picketing abortion clinics? Remember how "assume" is spelled.

I defend everyone's right to demonstrate as long as they don't destroy property and stomp on the rights of others.

BTW - I wonder why the info I dug wasn't mentioned....

[ Parent ]

Stop it, you're killing me (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by LarryE on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:47:19 AM EST
Your "truth," which contains nothing that has not been known from he beginning, is a worthy contribution to this thread.

I noted early on that the lawyers' argument

is indeed silly but it serves the valuable end of being a startlingly clear and concise expression of the way Bush's acolytes think.
Your attempt here, a wonderful example of the right wing attitude "truth is what we say it is," is a nice addition. I mean, just look at the very quotes you pulled from the link you "dug out." (Yeah, I'm sure it was a major investigative effort. Well, for you, anyway.)

  1. What you insist on calling an intent to "disrupt" the event was, at most, an intent to display t-shirts. T-SHIRTS? OMIGOD! HOW DARE THEY! HOW RUINOUS TO OTHERS' RIGHTS! I MEAN, MY GOD, T-SHIRTS? OH, THE HUMANITY!

  2. By the quote you cited, even that idea had been "abandoned."

  3. By the quote you cited, the pair was barred entry from a public event for which they had tickets, specifically because of a bumper sticker on their car. Not because of anything they did and not because the Secret Service had any information saying they planned to do anything. That is, they were denied entry precisely and avowedly because of their political opinions. (You remember, opinions. I'm sure you've heard of the word.)

And what do you conclude from this?

Well, duhhhhhhhhh.

Reasonable translation "Well, of course they were kicked out. Legitimately! Of course! How could it be otherwise? Only pro-Bushies can be allowed in a public forum! The mere presence of an opposing thought is an affront to good order!"

You are a buffoon. And unworthy of further response.

[ Parent ]

Don't underestimate t-shirts (5.00 / 2) (#83)
by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 08:48:12 AM EST
Shirts exert weird influences over Bush audiences.  There's something about the written word and unusually soft cotton that make it impossible for anybody in the room to concentrate:  

Mrs. Sheehans freedom of [shirt-]speech should not impede my right to hear the President, nor should it impede my right to do so in a peaceful and tranquil manner. I am very pleased that the police arrested her and removed her.


[ Parent ]
LarryE (none / 0) (#88)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 09:45:48 AM EST
You demonstrate a startling lack of ability to understand.

Yes, I did some research since I don't believe everything the press tells me, or in this case, doesn't tell me.

Was it difficult? Well it must have been too difficult for you, edger, squeaky, Frerwill, Claw, Sailor, etc. because none of you did it.

You just took the post, swallowed it whole and ran with it... Wanna tell me about "mind numbed robots?"  "Dittoheads?" Can you explain the difference between the Left's seekers of truth and them?????

The issue is "disruption." Now. Since these people were going into an location filled with partsian Bushies, if you didn't want to attract attention and get a response, why would you wear a "T-Shirt" with a political message on it?

Come on. Think. Try harder. You can do it.

And yes. At some point they intended to show them, else they wouldn't have put it on. Had they given up on the idea? Well, that's what they now claim.

I think it is pretty simple. They had tickets. So they, and everyone else with tickets, were checked out by the Secret Service for security purposes. Their political stance was noted and their names passed around. When they showed up, someone in the security detail saw them parking the car and passed the information re the bumpersticker on... the T Shirts, visible under the suit coats, sealed the deal and they were bounced.

[ Parent ]

Truths and made-up stuff (none / 0) (#93)
by roy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:05:57 AM EST
There's no solid support for any of these claims:


  1. The SS was aware of the ejectees' politics.  Since protest groups don't exactly register their membership with the government, the only way the SS could know about it is if the ejectees had been especially vocal or had been arrested in a previous protest.

  2. Their shirts were visible.  Your source says they were "tucked under business attire", which could mean under a suit jacket, or under a dress shirt.  Visible or invisible.  It gets cold in Denver in March; a t-shirt under a suit jacket seems inadequate (but I'm accustomed to Texas, so this point may be BS).  Since their goal was to hide their shirts, I'm inclined to think the shirt were invisible unless the SS searched them thoroughly.

  3. They were going to disrupt the speech.

I can actually almost give you #3, even though it's contradicted by your own source.  Based on the information we have now, it's at least a credible guess that they really were going to raise a ruckus.  Your article says they changed their minds, but that's probably just repeating their claim to have changed their minds, and they aren't exactly unbiased sources on the matter.  If they say they just wanted to hear the speech, they get sympathy.

However, because #1 and #2 are unsupported, it looks like the only information the decision was based on was the presence of the bumper sticker.  Or, to quote your source:

Secret Service (search) in Denver told the three the next day that the bumper sticker on their car, which read "No More Blood for Oil," a common anti-Iraq war slogan, triggered the ejection.

So you should go back to defending the choice to eject people based on bumper stickers, not based on other information that made known only after the fact.

[ Parent ]

roy - good morning (none / 0) (#94)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:47:57 AM EST
I think it is pretty simple. They had tickets. So they, and everyone else with tickets, were checked out by the Secret Service for security purposes

I think... You think.... differently. But you have to agree that anyone who had tickets were known, and checked out by the Secret Service. That's just common sense. This the Pres, not a book signing.

Let's have a beer.

As more information becomes available, positions change. I initally started because:

a. I'm really tired of, in general, the Left thinking it has the right to demonstrate, disrupt other's lives, right to travel/move about in the name of "free speech." We all know that "free speech" isn't the issue, what they want is to attack/embarass Bush. Hey, works for me. Just don't do it on my nickel.

b. As usual the press is better at leaving things out than putting them in. Why in this case? The news was them being bounced, not "why." Is that bias? Probably. And probably the "press" would not even see that haven't told the whole story.

And yes, the bumpersticker thing was thin gruel until I found the T-Shirt link.

Cancel the beer. I have to go replace my tomatoes and peppers that were killed in the record cold wave of last week.

Damn Global Warming.

[ Parent ]

Heh. (none / 0) (#52)
by Edger on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 04:41:11 PM EST
"The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."
Wouldn't you agree, ppj?

[ Parent ]
edger (1.00 / 0) (#61)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 15, 2007 at 06:03:14 PM EST
Agree with what? Are you trying to make a point?

Are you heavy into cartoons? Is your favorite Donald or Mickey??

[ Parent ]

Only Those Who Agree With the President May Hear Him Speak | 100 comments (100 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft