Cheney requires Loyalty Oaths now?

[n0cmonkey]

http://www.4law.co.il/Lea330b.htm <-😀

 

[n0cmonkey]

This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve. - George W. Bush, speaking during Perseverance Month at Fairground Elementary School. 01/28/2000

😛

 

[wfbberzerker]

don't worry, its safe to sign the thing. if you read it carefully, you're endorsing bush for the "reelection of the united states."
so, youre not endorsing him as president, youre just endorsing the reelection of the united states! and who doesn't want to reelect the us?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: wfbberzerker
don't worry, its safe to sign the thing. if you read it carefully, you're endorsing bush for the "reelection of the united states."
so, youre not endorsing him as president, youre just endorsing the reelection of the united states! and who doesn't want to reelect the us?

and "herby". Gotta love The Daily Show 😀

Guess I'll be voting for the inanimate carbon rod in November . . .

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I guess I'm a goddamn facist in Ameesh's opinion

well in case you don't know what fascism is, here is a defenition:

1) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

2) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.


If you requirie loyalty oaths before you can listen to the head of your government talk about your nation then i think it meets the first part of the defenition quite nicely.

 

Nothing like limiting people's right to free speech by an administration that professes its undying loyalty to 'freedom.'

 

[SaltBoy]

Ummm... I hate to be a broken record, but shouldn't this be in POLITICS AND NEWS??!

 

[eLiu]

*smacks himself with a trout for clicking this thread*

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: Feldenak
I guess I'm a goddamn facist in Ameesh's opinion

well in case you don't know what fascism is, here is a defenition:

1) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

2) A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.


If you requirie loyalty oaths before you can listen to the head of your government talk about your nation then i think it meets the first part of the defenition quite nicely.

ANYONE can listen to him. But this is a PRIVATE rally.

I have no problem with it. He's censoring nobody. He is simply being choosy about who he allows at his PRIVATE rally.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jumpr
Nothing like limiting people's right to free speech by an administration that professes its undying loyalty to 'freedom.'

How is he limiting anyone's free speech?

 

[PatboyX]

thats pretty crazy-scary.
but i may adopt this policy to all my upcoming posts.

 

[PingSpike]

Cheney just wanted to make it illegal for people to call him a bullsh|tter when he was dumping a truckload of bullsh|t all over their asses. So he made everyone in attendence sign a note that says "I herby, promise to swallow all bullsh|t and call it icecream."

Pretty simple really. Of course its really null and void unless your name happens to be Herby.

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jumpr
Nothing like limiting people's right to free speech by an administration that professes its undying loyalty to 'freedom.'

How is he limiting anyone's free speech?

Don't you think all New Mexicans should have a right to see their vice president speak?

Granted, it's a private rally, but the Bush-Cheney camp must feel really threatened if they're forcing rally attendees to sign loyalty oaths now.

 

[jjones]

Wow, more crappy political manoeuvers in politics. Who would have thunk it?

Oh, and the obligatory, Bush is a fascist neocon and Kerry is a pansy liberal.

Move this crap to P&amp;N

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: SaltBoy
Ummm... I hate to be a broken record, but shouldn't this be in POLITICS AND NEWS??!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jumpr
Nothing like limiting people's right to free speech by an administration that professes its undying loyalty to 'freedom.'

How is he limiting anyone's free speech?

Don't you think all New Mexicans should have a right to see their vice president speak?

Granted, it's a private rally, but the Bush-Cheney camp must feel really threatened if they're forcing rally attendees to sign loyalty oaths now.

Not at a private rally... as you point out in your own reply.

Tell me, should anyone have been allowed on the floor of the dem convention? Did they not carefully screen all the people who were there? Wait... it was INVITATION ONLY.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jumpr
Nothing like limiting people's right to free speech by an administration that professes its undying loyalty to 'freedom.'

How is he limiting anyone's free speech?

My thoughts exactly. It's a private rally, he can invite whoever he wants. This isn't like your 8th birthday party where you have to invite everyone in your class, or no one at all (atleast that's how it was at my school).

 

[Thump553]

ANYONE can listen to him. But this is a PRIVATE rally.

I have no problem with it. He's censoring nobody. He is simply being choosy about who he allows at his PRIVATE rally.

I don't understand this response-how can anyone listen to him, if only the faithful are permitted at his rallies?

Personally, I'm disgusted and flabbergasted that either party feels the need to so restrict their audience. If the journalists had any integrity, any soundbite from such events should include a prominent notice that the rally was not open to the public, and that all present had to sign such loyalty oaths.

These are not PRIVATE rallies-they are staged events to foster the illusion of public support for the speaker. This practice greatly offends me, no matter who is doing it.

 

Originally posted by: Amused
Tell me, should anyone have been allowed on the floor of the dem convention? Did they not carefully screen all the people who were there? Wait... it was INVITATION ONLY.

Invitation-only is different from loyalty oaths. The campaign gave the impression that anyone was allowed to attend, but when those people showed up to receive their passes, they were presented with the form to sign.

It may be legal, but it's unfair and hypocritical, IMHO.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thump553

ANYONE can listen to him. But this is a PRIVATE rally.

I have no problem with it. He's censoring nobody. He is simply being choosy about who he allows at his PRIVATE rally.

I don't understand this response-how can anyone listen to him, if only the faithful are permitted at his rallies?

Personally, I'm disgusted and flabbergasted that either party feels the need to so restrict their audience. If the journalists had any integrity, any soundbite from such events should include a prominent notice that the rally was not open to the public, and that all present had to sign such loyalty oaths.

These are not PRIVATE rallies-they are staged events to foster the illusion of public support for the speaker. This practice greatly offends me, no matter who is doing it.

The sole purpose of a rally is to drum up support.

Welcome to the real world.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: Thump553

ANYONE can listen to him. But this is a PRIVATE rally.

I have no problem with it. He's censoring nobody. He is simply being choosy about who he allows at his PRIVATE rally.

I don't understand this response-how can anyone listen to him, if only the faithful are permitted at his rallies?

Personally, I'm disgusted and flabbergasted that either party feels the need to so restrict their audience. If the journalists had any integrity, any soundbite from such events should include a prominent notice that the rally was not open to the public, and that all present had to sign such loyalty oaths.

These are not PRIVATE rallies-they are staged events to foster the illusion of public support for the speaker. This practice greatly offends me, no matter who is doing it.

You can listen to him on: TV, radio, internet.
You can read his words in: Magazines and newspapers.

You don't have a right to hear him anyway. There's nothing in the constitution that says you get to hear whatever Dicky says.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Amused
Tell me, should anyone have been allowed on the floor of the dem convention? Did they not carefully screen all the people who were there? Wait... it was INVITATION ONLY.

Invitation-only is different from loyalty oaths. The campaign gave the impression that anyone was allowed to attend, but when those people showed up to receive their passes, they were presented with the form to sign.

It may be legal, but it's unfair and hypocritical, IMHO.

A rally is a private event to show and drum up support for a person or cause.

You do not have ANY right to crash such an event and limit the rights of those attending the event by disrupting that event.

If you disagree with the man, hold your own rally. But you do not have the right to attend his.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: Amused
Tell me, should anyone have been allowed on the floor of the dem convention? Did they not carefully screen all the people who were there? Wait... it was INVITATION ONLY.

Invitation-only is different from loyalty oaths. The campaign gave the impression that anyone was allowed to attend, but when those people showed up to receive their passes, they were presented with the form to sign.

It may be legal, but it's unfair and hypocritical, IMHO.

If anything, invitation only creates a more exclusive crowd than loyalty oaths. You can sign the oath and just not follow it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
If you want to hear your vice president speak at a rally you have to sign an oath to support the bush/cheney ticket??!

I don't own him, he doesn't have to talk to me if he doesn't want to.

 

[darkjester]

State Rep. Dan Foley, R-Roswell, speaking on behalf of the Republican Party, said Thursday that a "known Democrat operative group" was intending to try to crash Saturday's campaign rally at Rio Rancho Mid-High School. He added that some people were providing false names and addresses and added that tickets for the limited-seating event should go to loyal Bush backers.
However, some who left the office off Osuna NE without tickets on Thursday said they're not affiliated with an operative group and should have a right to see their vice president without pledging their allegiance to Bush.
"I'm outraged at this. I'm being closed off by my own government. It's crazy," said East Mountains resident Pamela Random, who added that she is an unaffiliated voter.

Jeez, Pam, if you're going to provide a false name, couldn't you come up with a better last name? 😉 😛