Bush is not the first president to use these "tactics," which is the opposite of what you imply with your first post. If that was not your intent, then I'm sorry I misunderstood, but I still think that's the way your first post is slanted. If you wanted to argue that banning protestors is just plain wrong, then why bother flaming/blaming Bush? You clearly have an agenda, and you undermine your purported argument by pushing that agenda.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You guess? So you're willing to stifle our constitutional right to assemble and our freedom of speech on the off chance that something may get violent? That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Unless they ACTUALLY ARE getting violent, people have rights to assemble and express themselves.Originally posted by: tk149
First, safety is an issue. Whether you believe it or not, people get violent at big political events. I guess it's some kind of mob mentality. Segregation by long distance is one of the easiest ways to keep the peace.
First amendment buddy: "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."
I'm not "guessing" that violence occurs at rallies. I'm guessing about the "Mob Mentality" thing. Try reading that again.
You do not have an absolute right to Freedom of Speech. Safety concerns trump that right, as evidenced by the fact that you cannot maliciously yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Again, you don't seem to believe that violence occurs at rallies, and I guess I'm not going to change your mind.
That's not the point. They should be able to assemble where they wish. Usually that's outside the building where these meetings are taking place. Again, you insinuate that someone's demanding that they be admitted to the actual event. Wrong.Second, what's preventing the protestors from calling the media to their rallies? You argue like there is no alternative to letting protestors in to these events.
Okay, so we have some common point of agreement here. It's simply that I draw the line further than you do. You think that assembling immediately outside a building is okay. That argument certainly has merit. But depending on how incendiary the issue is, I still maintain that safety is directly proportional to distance. Note that you have contradicted your first statement by acknowledging that the right of the people to peacably assemble is NOT absolute.
Who cares about Clinton? He's not in office still, is he? Your tactic of deflecting attention away from Bush is very transparent. I care about what's going on right now. I'm perfectly aware that other presidents may have used similar tactics and that does not make it right. Is that all you got? That I don't like Bush? Wow. So insightful.Third, regarding your anti-Bush stance, I refer you to CPA's post. Your bias is clear. I note that you completely failed to reply to tnitsuj's statement regarding the attempt to block protestors during Clinton's administration.
BTW, do you always insult people you debate with? You must win a lot of debates.