not on taxpayers' money, you don't

[stevepaa]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/krwashbureau/20050330/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_bush_dissenters_wa

Republicans limit who is at Presidential visits. They have no business doing this. Only SS men should be involved for threats to President. Any citizen doing this is way out of bounds and if it is as a concerted effort as it seems to be by Republicans, it is a misuse of my money. If they want to limit attendance to just supporters then the Republicans should be paying for these events.

[legion]

I agree this case is extreme and unwarranted. However, this was not done at the direction of the president or by his staff...it was done by locals who thought they were doing the right thing. (I'm trying to pre-empt the inevitable vast right wing conspiracy argument.)

Still, no conservative I know could have stomached being in the same room as Clinton...even if it meant a chance to heckle him. Given the "activist" heritage of the left, it is not unreasonable to assume they were there for no other purpose and were simply waiting for their opportunity (or the agreed upon sign).

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by legion
IGiven the "activist" heritage of the left, it is not unreasonable to assume they were there for no other purpose and were simply waiting for their opportunity (or the agreed upon sign).

When the left learns to behave in public they may actually earn back the priveledge of being treated with respect. They have made their own bed in this regard. Far too many of their rallies, demonstrations, protests, and gatherings in general have degraded into chaos and even violence in recent years. The people barred from these events may not personally have had any intentions of disrupting the proceedings. Unfortunately, their politics align them with those that have and will behave poorly in these settings. Until the clearer thinking, calmer people on the left can distance themselves from this sort, they will continue to be painted with the same brush.

[stevepaa]

So we get the old guilt by association, and presumed guilty-not innocent response.

So it's okay by you that people get excluded from a taxpayer sponsored event because of a bumper sticker?

[stevepaa]

So how do you tell someone is from the left? Are we back to the length of their hair type criteria. Man, I have lived through that sort of cr*p before.

[gaijindabe]

"In Denver, Young, a 25-year-old information-technology worker, acknowledges that he and his friends had initially intended to protest Bush's appearance...... Young said the man who ejected him had no way of knowing about the aborted protest because they kept their opinions to themselves during their brief time at the event."

These punks kicked out?? Good.

[stevepaa]

Then do it on your money, not mine. Thieves.

[competentone]

"In Denver, Young, a 25-year-old information-technology worker, acknowledges that he and his friends had initially intended to protest Bush's appearance. All wore "Stop the Lies" T-shirts under their outer clothing. They had planned to expose their shirts while shouting the slogan.


"It was kind of juvenile. When we got inside, we decided not to do that," he said."

The Secret Service routinely uses directional microphones to eaves-drop on conversations in crowds; if a group of people are behaving suspiciously they'll get attention. (The SS has very effective training in recognizing suspicious behavior.)

There is a good chance these guys were thrown out because it was known they were going to do "something" -- it doesn’t sit well politically if the administration admits the SS is eavesdropping at events, so they won’t admit what really happened. (And before someone claims this is horrible Republican behavior; know that the SS does it when the protected party is a Democrat too!)

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by stevepaa
So how do you tell someone is from the left? Are we back to the length of their hair type criteria. Man, I have lived through that sort of cr*p before.

Me too, Stevepaa, and I don't like it either. The fact of the matter is that the left has some housecleaning to do before folks will let their guard down around them. Back in the hippie days, the persecution of peaceful people by intolerant authority was a far different thing than it is today. We have become far more tolerant of the lifestyles that came out of that era, and the diversity that surrounds us today. It's the violent protests, the disruption, that has people leery of the left. If the left simply cannot understand that they will have an even tougher row to hoe than they do now. Recognizing this, and admitting to themselves how folks perceive them, is a big first step to being invited pack to the party. I'm affraid they may not be capable of this.

[gaijindabe]

It is really not that public. Tickets were required. Folks were invited, folks were dis-invited.

A lot is done with our money - its tough to get excited over this.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by competentone
There is a good chance these guys were thrown out because it was known they were going to do "something" -- it doesn’t sit well politically if the administration admits the SS is eavesdropping at events, so they won’t admit what really happened. (And before someone claims this is horrible Republican behavior; know that the SS does it when the protected party is a Democrat too!)

Young said he was later told by Secret Service officials that he and his friends had been ejected by a local Republican volunteer who'd been spurred to action by the bumper sticker on their car: "No More Blood for Oil."

Okay by me if SS does it, they do it by their agenda and not due to politics. Also, okay by me if SS eavesdrops at public events, nothing you say or do there is protected. But it does appear that SS had nothing to do with this.

[stevepaa]

"going to do something" you mean sort of like "minority report"
no thanks, that's not my USA.

[widebody911]

The Bush administration has a proven track record of controlling dissent at public events, and they make no bones about it. Between their strong-arming people at events, and their sculping of media coverage via payola to columnists, Fox News, and publishing fake news reports, they've given the old KGB a run for their money.

[jkarolyi]

>The Bush administration has a proven track record of controlling dissent at public events, and they make no bones about it. Between their strong-arming people at events, and their sculping of media coverage via payola to columnists, Fox News, and publishing fake news reports, they've given the old KGB a run for their money.

Ah boy...the CA lefties and their evil right-wing-conspiracy theories are at it again...I love my state.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by jkarolyi
>The Bush administration has a proven track record of controlling dissent at public events, and they make no bones about it. Between their strong-arming people at events, and their sculping of media coverage via payola to columnists, Fox News, and publishing fake news reports, they've given the old KGB a run for their money.

Ah boy...the CA lefties and their evil right-wing-conspiracy theories are at it again...I love my state.

How is it a conspiracy theory when it's true?

NeoCon kool-aid, on the rocks!

[Superman]

You guys that deny conspiracy theories just slay me. Do you have any idea how naive it is to take the position that men, put in a position of power (and here we're talking about the most powerful, or the second most powerful person on the planet), act with integrity and without deception or self-interest? Take a quick look at the history of any country, or just look at the behavior you have been privy to at work. Read the bible. Any human story. And then come here and tell us that men in power can be trusted. Oh, and tell us that we're wacky for suggesting maybe they cannot.

[stevepaa]

Haven't we had some sort of coverup/conspiracy in nearly every Adminstration. Or do the ones in Republican adminstrations not count as they were done in the "best interests of the country"?


But I digress from my post. Sorry.

[island911]

Where is it written that public officials must share the podium with hecklers? . . or even reasoned counter points?

[stevepaa]

Not the issue here. This is about limitation of attendance by political affiliation to a taxpayer sponsored event.

[island911]

so if it's a taxpayer sponsored event, then anyone . . .any tax-payer should be allowed to attend?