Couple Arrested for Wearing Anti-Bush T-Shirts...Trespassing??...UPDATE: Charges DROPPED!

[irwincur]

Anyone that was not there should not comment, because well, you were not there. This reporter also was not there so they too are missing key details. It may have been BS, or it may have been blatant trespassing. Remember libs, getting arrested means nothing, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. These people will have their day, and that is when we will hear the facts of the case. I am guessing that when the facts come out (in a few years) no one will a) care or b) be surprised to hear that these people were not supposed to be where they were.

I hate it when people treat a reporters commentary (that is right, there are no longer reporters, they are all political commentators with an agenda) like it is 100% true. 75% of reporting is done off the scene, using circumstantial evidence, and questionable witnesses. If you happen to work for the NYT, 75% of your commentary is usually totally made up.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What we need is to let the right create a Nazi state like they want and then have a revolution and subject them to every tactic they instituted.

Torturing and beating all these self-righteous sh1theads would almost be fun.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What we need is to let the right create a Nazi state like they want and then have a revolution and subject them to every tactic they instituted.

Torturing and beating all these self-righteous sh1theads would almost be fun.

I'd be afraid they'd enjoy it.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Anyone that was not there should not comment, because well, you were not there. This reporter also was not there so they too are missing key details. It may have been BS, or it may have been blatant trespassing. Remember libs, getting arrested means nothing, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. These people will have their day, and that is when we will hear the facts of the case. I am guessing that when the facts come out (in a few years) no one will a) care or b) be surprised to hear that these people were not supposed to be where they were.

I hate it when people treat a reporters commentary (that is right, there are no longer reporters, they are all political commentators with an agenda) like it is 100% true. 75% of reporting is done off the scene, using circumstantial evidence, and questionable witnesses. If you happen to work for the NYT, 75% of your commentary is usually totally made up.

LOL

Here's a guy who questions this reporter's methods- accusing "circumstantial evidence" and "questionable witnesses" then in the same paragraph spews forth a line like "If you happen to work for the NYT, 75% of your commentary is usually totally made up". And just what honorable, non-partisan peer-reviewed professional investigation produced that result?

Drop your pathetic childish act, please. It's getting stale.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Anyone that was not there should not comment, because well, you were not there. This reporter also was not there so they too are missing key details. It may have been BS, or it may have been blatant trespassing. Remember libs, getting arrested means nothing, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. These people will have their day, and that is when we will hear the facts of the case. I am guessing that when the facts come out (in a few years) no one will a) care or b) be surprised to hear that these people were not supposed to be where they were.

I hate it when people treat a reporters commentary (that is right, there are no longer reporters, they are all political commentators with an agenda) like it is 100% true. 75% of reporting is done off the scene, using circumstantial evidence, and questionable witnesses. If you happen to work for the NYT, 75% of your commentary is usually totally made up.

I'm confused. Are you required to fail a literacy test to become a Bush apologist, or is it optional?

From Conjur's update:

Trespassing charges against two people who wore anti-Bush T-shirts to the president?s July 4 rally at the West Virginia Capitol were dropped Thursday because a city ordinance did not cover trespassing on Statehouse grounds.
[ ... ]
Law enforcement officers told the couple to take the shirts off, cover them or get out. When they refused and sat down, they were arrested. They then stood and accompanied the police, said Charleston Mayor Danny Jones.

1. They will not "get their day". The charges were dropped.

2. According to the Mayor, their offense was the shirts, NOT "blatant trespassing".


Please note that this played out about exactly as I said it would. It's a sleazy tactic used to circumvent the (lack of) actual law. Bush's Secret Service has moved one step closer to another famous S.S. Some day they will look back and be ashamed at what they're doing to America.

 

[Ldir]

Where did all Dub's fan-bois go? I want to hear them spin. Who needs freedom of speech when we have a perfect ruler? Heil Dubya!


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ldir
Where did all Dub's fan-bois go? I want to hear them spin. Who needs freedom of speech when we have a perfect ruler? Heil Dubya!


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

You're wasting electrons. The Bushies aren't much for acknowledging their errors, let alone apologizing for them.

How about it irwincur, Genx87, dnugget? Does even one of you have the integrity to admit you were wrong, and that this is a clear example of the Bush administration trampling the First Amendment?

 

[Bowfinger]

They had an article about this on the NBC Nightly News tonight. Had footage of the Ranks being led away, an interview with the mayor (Republican) saying the police had no choice -- they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service -- and a few other examples of people being arrested at Bush events for "trespassing". In every case, the charges were later dropped.

Every American should find this appalling, a direct attack by the Bush administration on one of our most cherished Constitutional rights. Are any of the Bush supporters here willing to come forward and acknowledge this is wrong, that however much you may feel Bush is better than Kerry, Bush's assault on free speech is un-American?

Anyone?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
They had an article about this on the NBC Nightly News tonight. Had footage of the Ranks being led away, an interview with the mayor (Republican) saying the police had no choice -- they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service -- and a few other examples of people being arrested at Bush events for "trespassing". In every case, the charges were later dropped.

Every American should find this appalling, a direct attack by the Bush administration on one of our most cherished Constitutional rights. Are any of the Bush supporters here willing to come forward and acknowledge this is wrong, that however much you may feel Bush is better than Kerry, Bush's assault on free speech is un-American?

Anyone?

Look -the SS isn't political. They could give a rats ass less about the politics of the protesters. They have a job to do - and that is to protect whoever they are assigned. So no, there is no "assult" on free speech - you just don't seem to respect the job the SS is charged with or does. Did you happen to see the cages the protesters were housed in for the DNC? Are you just as outraged at that? The point is - you can try to bleat on and on about some supposed "assult" on free-speech but that isn't the case.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So CAD, should the other trespassers who were pro-Bush been arrested too?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
They had an article about this on the NBC Nightly News tonight. Had footage of the Ranks being led away, an interview with the mayor (Republican) saying the police had no choice -- they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service -- and a few other examples of people being arrested at Bush events for "trespassing". In every case, the charges were later dropped.

Every American should find this appalling, a direct attack by the Bush administration on one of our most cherished Constitutional rights. Are any of the Bush supporters here willing to come forward and acknowledge this is wrong, that however much you may feel Bush is better than Kerry, Bush's assault on free speech is un-American?

Anyone?

Look -the SS isn't political. They could give a rats ass less about the politics of the protesters. They have a job to do - and that is to protect whoever they are assigned. So no, there is no "assult" on free speech - you just don't seem to respect the job the SS is charged with or does. Did you happen to see the cages the protesters were housed in for the DNC? Are you just as outraged at that? The point is - you can try to bleat on and on about some supposed "assult" on free-speech but that isn't the case.

CkG

LOL! That's a great rationalization, but it has nothing to do with what's happening. These are not violent demonstators. They are not jeopardizing the safety of the public servant in question. They are not disrupting the event. They were quietly, peacefully, lawfully wearing T-shirts critical of the man who is supposed to represent all Americans. You know what? If George W. Bush simply cannot endure a little public criticism, he has no business running for public office.

Re. the so-called free-speech zones, I think they are wrong, at least as they've often been implemented. (Yes, that includes the Dem's convention.) It's really a different issue, however, and one that the NBC article addressed. There is a difference between segregating organized protests -- something that is pragmatically necessary -- and removing individual protestors who are not impeding traffic or disrupting the event.

Nice try, but it seems the only "bleating" is yours. If you're a good American, you should find government suppression of peaceful free speech repugnant.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
They had an article about this on the NBC Nightly News tonight. Had footage of the Ranks being led away, an interview with the mayor (Republican) saying the police had no choice -- they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service -- and a few other examples of people being arrested at Bush events for "trespassing". In every case, the charges were later dropped.

Every American should find this appalling, a direct attack by the Bush administration on one of our most cherished Constitutional rights. Are any of the Bush supporters here willing to come forward and acknowledge this is wrong, that however much you may feel Bush is better than Kerry, Bush's assault on free speech is un-American?

Anyone?

Not even one?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
They had an article about this on the NBC Nightly News tonight. Had footage of the Ranks being led away, an interview with the mayor (Republican) saying the police had no choice -- they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service -- and a few other examples of people being arrested at Bush events for "trespassing". In every case, the charges were later dropped.

Every American should find this appalling, a direct attack by the Bush administration on one of our most cherished Constitutional rights. Are any of the Bush supporters here willing to come forward and acknowledge this is wrong, that however much you may feel Bush is better than Kerry, Bush's assault on free speech is un-American?

Anyone?

Look -the SS isn't political. They could give a rats ass less about the politics of the protesters. They have a job to do - and that is to protect whoever they are assigned. So no, there is no "assult" on free speech - you just don't seem to respect the job the SS is charged with or does. Did you happen to see the cages the protesters were housed in for the DNC? Are you just as outraged at that? The point is - you can try to bleat on and on about some supposed "assult" on free-speech but that isn't the case.

CkG

LOL! That's a great rationalization, but it has nothing to do with what's happening. These are not violent demonstators. They are not jeopardizing the safety of the public servant in question. They are not disrupting the event. They were quietly, peacefully, lawfully wearing T-shirts critical of the man who is supposed to represent all Americans. You know what? If George W. Bush simply cannot endure a little public criticism, he has no business running for public office.

Re. the so-called free-speech zones, I think they are wrong, at least as they've often been implemented. (Yes, that includes the Dem's convention.) It's really a different issue, however, and one that the NBC article addressed. There is a difference between segregating organized protests -- something that is pragmatically necessary -- and removing individual protestors who are not impeding traffic or disrupting the event.

Nice try, but it seems the only "bleating" is yours. If you're a good American, you should find government suppression of peaceful free speech repugnant.

they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service

Are you suggesting that the SS was acting in a political manner at the direction of Bush? Are you really going to accuse them of that? You really think the SS acts as political pawns?

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
They had an article about this on the NBC Nightly News tonight. Had footage of the Ranks being led away, an interview with the mayor (Republican) saying the police had no choice -- they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service -- and a few other examples of people being arrested at Bush events for "trespassing". In every case, the charges were later dropped.

Every American should find this appalling, a direct attack by the Bush administration on one of our most cherished Constitutional rights. Are any of the Bush supporters here willing to come forward and acknowledge this is wrong, that however much you may feel Bush is better than Kerry, Bush's assault on free speech is un-American?

Anyone?

Look -the SS isn't political. They could give a rats ass less about the politics of the protesters. They have a job to do - and that is to protect whoever they are assigned. So no, there is no "assult" on free speech - you just don't seem to respect the job the SS is charged with or does. Did you happen to see the cages the protesters were housed in for the DNC? Are you just as outraged at that? The point is - you can try to bleat on and on about some supposed "assult" on free-speech but that isn't the case.

CkG

LOL! That's a great rationalization, but it has nothing to do with what's happening. These are not violent demonstators. They are not jeopardizing the safety of the public servant in question. They are not disrupting the event. They were quietly, peacefully, lawfully wearing T-shirts critical of the man who is supposed to represent all Americans. You know what? If George W. Bush simply cannot endure a little public criticism, he has no business running for public office.

Re. the so-called free-speech zones, I think they are wrong, at least as they've often been implemented. (Yes, that includes the Dem's convention.) It's really a different issue, however, and one that the NBC article addressed. There is a difference between segregating organized protests -- something that is pragmatically necessary -- and removing individual protestors who are not impeding traffic or disrupting the event.

Nice try, but it seems the only "bleating" is yours. If you're a good American, you should find government suppression of peaceful free speech repugnant.

they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service

Are you suggesting that the SS was acting in a political manner at the direction of Bush? Are you really going to accuse them of that? You really think the SS acts as political pawns?

CkG

Yes. They do what they're told, right or wrong, Constitutional or not. How was that not clear?

(By the way, you're ignoring the point. Contrary to your rationalization, these "protestors" did not pose a threat to Bush. There was no reason to remove them ... except keeping the President from seeing two critics.)

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Actually it matters a lot whether this was 'getting caught' or 'being singled out'. You can fight something as simple as a parking ticket if you can proove your neighbor committed the same offence at the same time (i.e. that the ticketing officer must have been aware of this) without being ticketed. So if hte area was full of people, and only they were asked to leave, it is not acceptable treatment. If they were the only ones there, then there's no reason to suspect their treatment was related to the shirts they were wearing; only then are the Tshirts irrelevent.

Who told you that?

btw nice sensationalizing to the original poster. Why is it people who trespass and get thrown in jail always have a political statement?

Probably because they are class c A-holes who like to make a scene. When they are thrown in jail the typical ignorants come to their defense.

Case in point.

No one was "thrown in jail".


Good straw man argument, with a lot of assumptions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service

Are you suggesting that the SS was acting in a political manner at the direction of Bush? Are you really going to accuse them of that? You really think the SS acts as political pawns?

CkG

Yes. They do what they're told, right or wrong, Constitutional or not. How was that not clear?

(By the way, you're ignoring the point. Contrary to your rationalization, these "protestors" did not pose a threat to Bush. There was no reason to remove them ... except keeping the President from seeing two critics.)

Wow. A new low for Bowfinger - charging the SS with being Bush political pawns. Don't mind the SS works for both sides.
Contrary to your ignorant accusation -the SS could give two sh!ts less about the politics - they have a job to do. You can sit here and claim they posed no threat but you don't have all the info and you certainly don't know that the SS had them removed so the President wouldn't see them.

CsG

 

[Steeplerot]

anti-Americans like that are just terrorists in disguise.[/quote]
How could they be?
Why would a terrorist disguise themselves in a anti-bush shirt?
Bush is the best thing they have going for them!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service

Are you suggesting that the SS was acting in a political manner at the direction of Bush? Are you really going to accuse them of that? You really think the SS acts as political pawns?

CkG

Yes. They do what they're told, right or wrong, Constitutional or not. How was that not clear?

(By the way, you're ignoring the point. Contrary to your rationalization, these "protestors" did not pose a threat to Bush. There was no reason to remove them ... except keeping the President from seeing two critics.)

Wow. A new low for Bowfinger - charging the SS with being Bush political pawns. Don't mind the SS works for both sides.
Contrary to your ignorant accusation -the SS could give two sh!ts less about the politics - they have a job to do. You can sit here and claim they posed no threat but you don't have all the info and you certainly don't know that the SS had them removed so the President wouldn't see them.

CsG

Lots of belligerent rhetoric there Cad. Any of it you can back up with facts? Are you honestly claiming the Secret Service won't do what the White House tells them to do? Really? With a straight face? Given Bush & Co's complete intolerence for dissent? How long do you suppose a member of the President's security detail would last if they started refusing to follow orders?

Let's be clear about one thing Cad. I do NOT blame the Secret Service. They're good men and women. I'm sure many of them support Bush enthusiastically. I'm sure many others hold their noses every time they see him. Either way, they are dedicated professionals who will do what they're told. In this case, they've been told by the Bsuh administration to ensure there are no critics seen at Bush events.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service

Are you suggesting that the SS was acting in a political manner at the direction of Bush? Are you really going to accuse them of that? You really think the SS acts as political pawns?

CkG

Yes. They do what they're told, right or wrong, Constitutional or not. How was that not clear?

(By the way, you're ignoring the point. Contrary to your rationalization, these "protestors" did not pose a threat to Bush. There was no reason to remove them ... except keeping the President from seeing two critics.)

Wow. A new low for Bowfinger - charging the SS with being Bush political pawns. Don't mind the SS works for both sides.
Contrary to your ignorant accusation -the SS could give two sh!ts less about the politics - they have a job to do. You can sit here and claim they posed no threat but you don't have all the info and you certainly don't know that the SS had them removed so the President wouldn't see them.

CsG

Lots of belligerent rhetoric there Cad. Any of it you can back up with facts? Are you honestly claiming the Secret Service won't do what the White House tells them to do? Really? With a straight face? Given Bush & Co's complete intolerence for dissent? How long do you suppose a member of the President's security detail would last if they started refusing to follow orders?

Let's be clear about one thing Cad. I do NOT blame the Secret Service. They're good men and women. I'm sure many of them support Bush enthusiastically. I'm sure many others hold their noses every time they see him. Either way, they are dedicated professionals who will do what they're told. In this case, they've been told by the Bsuh administration to ensure there are no critics seen at Bush events.

And I suppose you have FACTS to back up your claim that they are political pawns for Bush? According to the guys I talked to - they don't care what a sign says. If they need to be moved - they'll be moved(almost a direct quote). But anyway, I'm sure you'll sleep better tonight if you keep believing that the SS are Bush's political pawns so you can continue to believe what you want. However, since I believe there is hope for everyone, you need to know that your BS about "complete intolerance for dissent" comes off as rabid Bush hatred, but hey - maybe that's what you are going for. Again, who am I to stop you...

I suggest you take a peek at the other thread and discuss "the line" because at this point you are just spewing your partisan hatred of Bush. Maybe we can continue after you answer the line question, but your disrespecting the SS is a new low and I don't know if I want to aid in your continuation down that road. We'll see how well you do with the line.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Lots of belligerent rhetoric there Cad. Any of it you can back up with facts? Are you honestly claiming the Secret Service won't do what the White House tells them to do? Really? With a straight face? Given Bush & Co's complete intolerence for dissent? How long do you suppose a member of the President's security detail would last if they started refusing to follow orders?

Let's be clear about one thing Cad. I do NOT blame the Secret Service. They're good men and women. I'm sure many of them support Bush enthusiastically. I'm sure many others hold their noses every time they see him. Either way, they are dedicated professionals who will do what they're told. In this case, they've been told by the Bsuh administration to ensure there are no critics seen at Bush events.

And I suppose you have FACTS to back up your claim that they are political pawns for Bush?

At least as many as you. You show me yours and I'll show you mine. :roll:

According to the guys I talked to - they don't care what a sign says. If they need to be moved - they'll be moved(almost a direct quote).

Didn't bother to read the story, did you? Didn't see the clips on the news, did you? They weren't holding signs. They got tickets for the event, and were standing with the hundreds of other people with tickets to the event. The only thing special about the Ranks is they wore T-shirts with a crossed-out picture of Bush. That's it. They weren't disrupting the event. They were just standing there, quietly, peacefully, legally exercising their First Amendment rights.

While I'm sure you can spin this into a threat on the President, I am equally sure no rational person can.

But anyway, I'm sure you'll sleep better tonight if you keep believing that the SS are Bush's political pawns so you can continue to believe what you want. However, since I believe there is hope for everyone, you need to know that your BS about "complete intolerance for dissent" comes off as rabid Bush hatred, but hey - maybe that's what you are going for.

I'm sure it does ... to you and the other rabid Bush worshippers. What it really is is a love for America and our freedoms, one of the keys to America's special place in the world. I support the Constititution and the Bill of Rights. Why don't you?

Again, who am I to stop you...

I suggest you take a peek at the other thread and discuss "the line" because at this point you are just spewing your partisan hatred of Bush. Maybe we can continue after you answer the line question, but your disrespecting the SS is a new low and I don't know if I want to aid in your continuation down that road. We'll see how well you do with the line.

CsG

More distortion and disinformation, just another straw man to divert from the real topic at hand. I don't disrepect the Secret Service at all. I do disagree with what they're doing. That's a nuance Bush and his followers don't seem to understand.


PS. "In every case, the charges were later dropped." What's that tell you?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
They had an article about this on the NBC Nightly News tonight. Had footage of the Ranks being led away, an interview with the mayor (Republican) saying the police had no choice -- they were ordered to arrest the couple by the Secret Service -- and a few other examples of people being arrested at Bush events for "trespassing". In every case, the charges were later dropped.

Every American should find this appalling, a direct attack by the Bush administration on one of our most cherished Constitutional rights. Are any of the Bush supporters here willing to come forward and acknowledge this is wrong, that however much you may feel Bush is better than Kerry, Bush's assault on free speech is un-American?

Anyone?

I note Cad is swinging alone on this one. Is this a case of silence gives consent? Can we assume other Bush supporters agree this was out of line, but don't want to criticize their team?

 

[Bowfinger]

Cad,

I found the "line" thread you mention above. I already addressed it in this thread. I said:

• Re. the so-called free-speech zones, I think they are wrong, at least as they've often been implemented. (Yes, that includes the Dem's convention.) It's really a different issue, however, and one that the NBC article addressed. There is a difference between segregating organized protests -- something that is pragmatically necessary -- and removing individual protestors who are not impeding traffic or disrupting the event.

You miss things like this when you jump on one little bit to divert the discussion.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And I suppose you have FACTS to back up your claim that they are political pawns for Bush?

Trying out to be Hannity's replacement?

Do you have the moral fortitude to decry the actions of the Bush campaign to have these people (and that elderly woman) arrested?


And, why must you always put words into peoples' mouths? No one is saying the Secret Service are political pawns. By your logic, every American soldier in Iraq is a political pawn of Bush.

Oh wait....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Lots of belligerent rhetoric there Cad. Any of it you can back up with facts? Are you honestly claiming the Secret Service won't do what the White House tells them to do? Really? With a straight face? Given Bush & Co's complete intolerence for dissent? How long do you suppose a member of the President's security detail would last if they started refusing to follow orders?

Let's be clear about one thing Cad. I do NOT blame the Secret Service. They're good men and women. I'm sure many of them support Bush enthusiastically. I'm sure many others hold their noses every time they see him. Either way, they are dedicated professionals who will do what they're told. In this case, they've been told by the Bsuh administration to ensure there are no critics seen at Bush events.

And I suppose you have FACTS to back up your claim that they are political pawns for Bush?

At least as many as you. You show me yours and I'll show you mine. :roll:

In third grade tonight? :roll:

According to the guys I talked to - they don't care what a sign says. If they need to be moved - they'll be moved(almost a direct quote).

Didn't bother to read the story, did you? Didn't see the clips on the news, did you? They weren't holding signs. They got tickets for the event, and were standing with the hundreds of other people with tickets to the event. The only thing special about the Ranks is they wore T-shirts with a crossed-out picture of Bush. That's it. They weren't disrupting the event. They were just standing there, quietly, peacefully, legally exercising their First Amendment rights.

While I'm sure you can spin this into a threat on the President, I am equally sure no rational person can.

umm - hello. Sign/shirt/whatever, like I said - it doesn't matter to the SS. Look Bow, those two goons wouldn't even come close to getting into an event around here and they sure as heck wouldn't have gotten into the Cheney event I worked at. Come try to get into the Bush campaign stop next tuesday with an anti-Bush shirt. I want to see how close you make it to getting in the door. I promise no cops/SS will mess with you because of your anti-bush shirt. Ofcourse us volunteers won't let you in but we're cool like that Ask for me - I'll be there working...if you have the balls. I'd rather enjoy ripping up your ticket to get in

But anyway, I'm sure you'll sleep better tonight if you keep believing that the SS are Bush's political pawns so you can continue to believe what you want. However, since I believe there is hope for everyone, you need to know that your BS about "complete intolerance for dissent" comes off as rabid Bush hatred, but hey - maybe that's what you are going for.

I'm sure it does ... to you and the other rabid Bush worshippers. What it really is is a love for America and our freedoms, one of the keys to America's special place in the world. I support the Constititution and the Bill of Rights. Why don't you?

I do support it and your assumption to the contrary is asinine. You need to get a grip on your hate and go read the other thread about "the line".

Again, who am I to stop you...

I suggest you take a peek at the other thread and discuss "the line" because at this point you are just spewing your partisan hatred of Bush. Maybe we can continue after you answer the line question, but your disrespecting the SS is a new low and I don't know if I want to aid in your continuation down that road. We'll see how well you do with the line.

CsG

More distortion and disinformation, just another straw man to divert from the real topic at hand. I don't disrepect the Secret Service at all. I do disagree with what they're doing. That's a nuance Bush and his followers don't seem to understand.

Wrong - you said yes when asked if you think they are Bush's political pawns - that is not showing them respect and you have nothing to support your claim they are political pawns- only your Bush hating conspiracy BS. It is not a distractin because it is clearly noted that the SS wanted them arrested and you ASSume it was political(that Bush used them as political pawns) without all the info. Now go draw the line in the other thread.

PS. "In every case, the charges were later dropped." What's that tell you?

That they didn't have enough to get a conviction? Go draw the line and then we'll discuss this because you are quite a master of the sliding scale.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And I suppose you have FACTS to back up your claim that they are political pawns for Bush?

Trying out to be Hannity's replacement?

Do you have the moral fortitude to decry the actions of the Bush campaign to have these people (and that elderly woman) arrested?


And, why must you always put words into peoples' mouths? No one is saying the Secret Service are political pawns. By your logic, every American soldier in Iraq is a political pawn of Bush.

Oh wait....

He answer the question with a yes(but has nothing to back it up). I did not put words into his mouth, I asked - he answered.
Sorry but you are wrong, this has everything to do with both of your partisan hatred for Bush and little to do with reality. The SS doesn't give a rip about your politics - don't continue to disrespect them by thinking they do.

CsG