America Bush Style

Karzak-your idea of "facts" has no basis in law. These people were in violation of no law.

So, you agree then that merely wearing a tshirt can be a disturbance. That couple went to the gathering with no other purpose than to be disruptive and garner publicity. That's it. There is no higher meaning behind their actions, they were publicity hounds seeking attention.

They were free to do as they wish, they went in, showed their t-shirts. Then the police freely escorted them out. You seem to feel that the left's rights are more important than the rights. What about the people that went to see Bush speak? Don't they have the right not to be bothered by demonstrations? Doesn't Bush have the right to be able to speak in public without protestor trying to drown him out?

So, don't give me crap aboput not understanding rights. I understand them perfectly. Apparently, it's the morons like this couple that got arrested that aren't quite clear.

Amendment I

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

For those who need a refresher course.

Quote:

So, you agree then that merely wearing a tshirt can be a disturbance. That couple went to the gathering with no other purpose than to be disruptive and garner publicity. That's it. There is no higher meaning behind their actions, they were publicity hounds seeking attention.

Am I writing English? because that's not even close to what I said. Wearing a shirt DOESN'T DENOTE A DISRUPTIVE situation. That's silly. Are we all in Grade school now where we need to have clothing restrictions as public events? If so I have a few thoughts on spandex and who should and should not wear it. I am entertained by the way you keep spinning this in order to avoid actually facing up to the fact that you don't seem to actually possess any conviction or any true understanding of the Constitution.

Quote:

They were free to do as they wish, they went in, showed their t-shirts. Then the police freely escorted them out. You seem to feel that the left's rights are more important than the rights. What about the people that went to see Bush speak? Don't they have the right not to be bothered by demonstrations? Doesn't Bush have the right to be able to speak in public without protestor trying to drown him out?

The spinning show gets even more entertaining. What exactly having those shirts on would prevent Bush from speaking?

Do you think T-shirts have the ability to verbalize? NO Bush doesn't have the RIGHT because he is EVERYONES president, he is employed by that couple and me and you and every American. If we PAY for his gas to fly Air Force one, for the PR drapes behind him for him being there then NO he doesn't have the RIGHT to speak without protestors Sorry. Im curious to know where you think this little stipulation exists in our constitution.

MY God man do you think before you write?

Quote:

So, don't give me crap about not understanding rights. I understand them perfectly. Apparently, it's the morons like this couple that got arrested that aren't quite clear.

Maybe in the world that exists in the ass of GWB, but here in America and reality you have not shown that you do understand. Sorry.

Some seem to need to be reminded over and over what our constitution says

Quote:

Amendment I

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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

For those who need a refresher course.

Trespass

1. law enter somebody else's land unlawfully: to go onto somebody else's land or enter somebody else's property without permission


2. law cause injury: to cause injury to the person, property, or rights of another


3. encroach on somebody: to intrude on somebody's privacy or time


4. break a moral or social law: to commit a sin or break a social law ( archaic

When you said "Yes unless the facility itself had a policy agaisnt profanity. Plus I would LOVE to see someone do that. Trust me there would be NO need to call the police. " What did you mean? Obviously you didn't mean what I thought you meant so flesh it out so I can understand you.

Those shirts would lead people like me to distraction. It may lead people not like me to become loud and obnoxious towards those that would chose to enter a lion's den wearing sausage around their necks.

Whatever. Arguing with you is equivalent to farting in the wind.

Where in there does it say that others have to listen to what anyone says and that they have the right to speak when and where they choose?

You obviously don't get the issue here.

Surely you have heard that yelling fire in a movie house is against the law, correct? "but what about freedom of speech?" you ask? No one is saying that idiots can't say what they want, it's where and when they can say it. If they want to yell about Bush having craps and being a child molester, they can. At the right time and at the right place.

You wouldn't think I'd have to do this but here I am

You can't blame the president for everything that you disagree with. Sure they were protesting Bush so it had to do with him, but it was not his fault that they were arrested. In the constitution it says that slander against the president is illegal. I do disagree with the fact that they were arrested because they didnt do anything harmful, and werent directly threatning his life. You cant blame a president for their arrest though.

I blame the President

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/2004/July/15/update.htm

they broke no laws...

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

Like the article states.......no laws broken......

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

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

Like the article states.......no laws broken......

No city law was broken, or more likely the law was not precise enough, but I don't have a copy of charlston law to verify the law. West virginia state law certainly could be applied, but there was no reason to pursue it, the two troublemakers were leaving the state and had learned their lesson.

§61-3B-3. Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.

Give it up dick, they dropped the charges because there weren't any to prosecute....end of story. We don't need you to verify the law when the district attorney and the mayor have stated they broke no law. We'll take their word.

(b) If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to him by the owner, tenant or agent of such owner or tenant, or if the offender opens any door, fence or gate, and thereby exposes animals, crops or other property to waste, destruction or freedom, or causes any damage to property by such trespassing on property other than a structure or conveyance, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned in the county jail for a period not to exceed six months, or both such fine and imprisonment.