peacefuljeffrey 0 #26 July 21, 2004 QuoteThe pres of the univ decided to stifle protest, not pres Bush. Oh, fine, quibble over details like WHO was responsible for a decision! Why can't you just be civil and let the Democrats here carry on as though this was something Bush himself ordered? You big meanie! --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #27 July 21, 2004 QuoteQuote> You don't really believe that was the only reason for an arrest do you? Yes. There were people at a public event; they had tickets to the event and were wearing anti-Bush T-shirts. They were arrested for trespassing. Link: http://www.news8austin.com/content/election_2004/election_stories/default.asp?ArID=111986 Dude, you are gonna make their brains overheat if you keep pointing out the fallacies in their arguments. Anyone who owns private property or is the proprietor of a venue has discretion to ask people to leave for whatever reason he chooses. If they don't leave when they are told to do so, they are, in the eyes of the law, trespassing. That's just the way it is. - QuoteHe said the two were asked to go out to the designated protest area, but refused. They were protesters, just as if they held a sign. Should the organizers not be allowed to restrict the location of protesters, or should protesters be allowed to take over an event if they have the numbers.-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #28 July 21, 2004 >They were protesters, just as if they held a sign. I didn't say they weren't. I just said that they were arrested because they wore an anti-Bush shirt, which you disbelieved. Sure, the shirts might have said something anti-Bush. In this case, there were a great many pro-Bush protesters who were wearing pro-Bush shirts and carrying pro-Bush signs; none of them were asked to leave. Only people with a certain political view were excluded from the event - even if they did nothing to express that view other than wear a shirt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,131 #29 July 22, 2004 >Anyone who owns private property or is the proprietor of a venue has >discretion to ask people to leave for whatever reason he chooses. Agreed. And who has the right to ask you to leave a public place, funded by public money, if they disagree with your politics? Who can tell you you don't belong in a public park because you're pro-gun and therefore dangerous? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #30 July 22, 2004 If you get a permit for some sort of event in a park, you have the right.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #31 July 22, 2004 QuoteIf you get a permit for some sort of event in a park, you have the right. Exactly. Thank you. Ever wonder why these people ignore things like this when they conveniently don't support their hyperbole? --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 July 22, 2004 QuoteQuote> You don't really believe that was the only reason for an arrest do you? Yes. There were people at a public event; they had tickets to the event and were wearing anti-Bush T-shirts. They were arrested for trespassing. Link: http://www.news8austin.com/content/election_2004/election_stories/default.asp?ArID=111986 QuoteHe said the two were asked to go out to the designated protest area, but refused. They were protesters, just as if they held a sign. Should the organizers not be allowed to restrict the location of protesters, or should protesters be allowed to take over an event if they have the numbers. No, should those that bought tickets to hear whom ever not be allowed to do so?? ...as for the story says....I will give you that but I do not believe that is all that was going on. (major disruption maybe??) I don't know... As for moving people to areas.....every president has done it, Kerry is doing it now. So what is your point here??"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #33 July 22, 2004 QuoteIf they didn't run rampant with their in-your-face exercise of their first amendment rights, people wouldn't spring out of the woodwork to clamor for censoring them. That's the EXACT reason why the amendment exists. To guarantee that when someone says something that others perceive as offensive or in-their-face, that they won't be censored. Self restraint is still restraint. If you're censoring yourself because you fear political or legal ramifications, are you freedoms being protected? Did you make that choice willingly? Or were you black mailed into it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #34 July 22, 2004 QuoteAs for moving people to areas.....every president has done it, Kerry is doing it now. So what is your point here?? I believe the point is that it is wrong. If Kerry does or anyone. The DNC is setting up a designate protest area for the convention. That is wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 July 22, 2004 QuoteQuoteAs for moving people to areas.....every president has done it, Kerry is doing it now. So what is your point here?? I believe the point is that it is wrong. If Kerry does or anyone. The DNC is setting up a designate protest area for the convention. That is wrong. Agreed, but I do not think small groups of people, or large groups for that matter should be able to disrupt meetings to the point they can not be held. Stand there with your sign, OK, but shout down a meeting....I don't agree with that"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #36 July 22, 2004 I agree with that too. I'm talking about allowing demonstrations in a public street in favor of, but not allowing those opposed to be present. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #37 July 22, 2004 QuoteI agree with that too. I'm talking about allowing demonstrations in a public street in favor of, but not allowing those opposed to be present. Here we agree!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
