Land of The Free ?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

hmmm. more don't knows and "not gonna tell ya" fun in BushWorld...

Quote:

Man Won't Be Charged Over Bush Colo. Visit

By JON SARCHE
DENVER (AP) - Federal prosecutors will not file charges against a man who removed three people from a President Bush appearance earlier this year after they arrived in a car with a bumper sticker reading ``No More Blood for Oil,'' officials said Friday.

The Secret Service, which had been investigating to determine whether the man impersonated a Secret Service officer, recently turned over its report to prosecutors.

U.S. Attorney William Leone said there was not enough evidence to prosecute the man. ``Criminal law is not an appropriate tool to resolve this dispute,'' he said. ``The normal give and take of the political system is the appropriate venue for a resolution.''

An attorney for Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise and Alex Young said his clients plan to pursue a civil lawsuit against the person, accusing him of violating their free-speech rights and assaulting them.

``We don't know who it was, but we'll find out who it was and we'll sue him,'' said lawyer Dan Recht. ``I'm disappointed but not surprised charges won't be filed, but it remains to be seen whether the Secret Service did a thorough investigation.''

The three were thrown out of Bush's March 21 appearance in a hangar at the former Lowry Air Force Base. Bush had traveled to Denver as part of a national tour to promote his proposals to reform the Social Security system.

They said a man wearing a dark suit, radio earpiece and lapel pin ordered them to leave the meeting, threatening them with arrest even though they had not caused a disruption or revealed their T-shirts, which said ``stop the lies.''

The Secret Service has said the man was a host committee staffer but has declined to comment further. The White House has acknowledged the man was a volunteer, but like the Secret Service, refused requests to identify him.

07/29/05 18:24

must have been an agent from the matrix.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,867 • Replies: 35

No top replies

Three trouble makers not allowed to make trouble and now they are whining and making trouble.

Bully for them!

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Three trouble makers not allowed to make trouble and now they are whining and making trouble.

Bully for them!

They didn't expose their shirts but they were going to. They are only upset that they didn't get to cause trouble and disturb other people. I hope any judge that hears this case laughs them out of court.

"We wanted to cause trouble and were mad that they stopped us!"

What a waste of more govt money to sue.

0 Replies

freely making your thoughts known to your president is "causing trouble"? isn't he supposed to be the president of all americans, not just those that voted for him ?

since president bush seems to only make appearances at this type of controlled event, says he doesn't read the paper and doesn't pay attention to polls, where then do you suppose that people should share their thoughts with him ?

and don't cop out and say "at the ballot box". i'm asking a broader question than that.

0 Replies

Didn't this take place during the campaign? It's not that he "only make appearances at this type of controlled event," but at events sponsored by the RNC they have the right to preclude potential troublemakers.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Didn't this take place during the campaign? It's not that he "only make appearances at this type of controlled event," but at events sponsored by the RNC they have the right to preclude potential troublemakers.

No it took place during his SS run across the US. The fact that a majority of the anti-war people who have attended his events cause trouble by making their presence known in a very loud and intrusive way is the issue.

You can't say they didn't go there to cause trouble if they were all wearing the same shirt. They claim they didn't plan on showing the shirts but that is hogwash and they know it. If they didn't plan on showing the shirts and causing trouble then they wouldn't have worn the same shirt in the beginning.

0 Replies

Baldimo Bush made an SS run across the US? I'd change that if I were you Cool

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Didn't this take place during the campaign? It's not that he "only make appearances at this type of controlled event," but at events sponsored by the RNC they have the right to preclude potential troublemakers.

nope, article says march 21, this year.

when does he not make controlled appearances ? i could be wrong, but it seems like that's all we hear about...military, think tanks, factories, townhalls. they're all controlled environs. and pretty professionally staged too.

just for referrence;

back around '95 or '96, the wife and i went to see clinton deliver a speech at the college where she works. it was outside and in a sort of natural amphitheatre. there was a gazillion people including several of my wife's la crescenta republican co-workers. most of whom were in full glory of battle shrilling about lewinsky and all of that a lot of the time.

there was absolutely no screening of any kind to get in. zero.

there were a few people holding signs with their complaints. no problem. their were a couple calling out their complaints here and there. no problem. there were certainly secret service around, and more that you couldn't identify, i should think.

the general public had clear access to their president without fear of ejection or retribution.

see, the thing is that the story cannot be that "whoever" is our president only when it is politically useful to say so. the president is either a man of the people all of the time, or not at all.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Baldimo Bush made an SS run across the US? I'd change that if I were you

glad i didn't post that. :wink:

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

You can't say they didn't go there to cause trouble if they were all wearing the same shirt. They claim they didn't plan on showing the shirts but that is hogwash and they know it. If they didn't plan on showing the shirts and causing trouble then they wouldn't have worn the same shirt in the beginning.

It is disturbing that the exercise of our First Amendment right to free speech is increasingly being abridged because some see it as "trouble making." The would-be protesters never said they weren't going to show their shirts, but that they hadn't shown their shirts and, thus, had given no cause to be kicked out. This was a case of a public employee giving a public speech on publicly owned property, and if citizens wanted to attend wearing a protest message on their clothing, then nothing should have prevented them.

0 Replies

the prez and his handlers must be mighty afraid of those "troublemakers". hbg

0 Replies

Probably not so much afraid. More likely it was just preventative.

0 Replies

"More likely it was just preventative. "

i didn't realize that citizens of the united states must be prevented from from showing non-violent disapproval. is that a new rule ? hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

i didn't realize that citizens of the united states must be prevented from from showing non-violent disapproval. is that a new rule ? hbg

Yes. Didn't you get the memo? :wink:

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

"More likely it was just preventative. "

i didn't realize that citizens of the united states must be prevented from from showing non-violent disapproval. is that a new rule ? hbg

No one was preventred from showing non-violent disapproval. 3 individuals of uncertain motive and disposition were not allowed into a venue where the president was planning to speak. They could have voiced their displeasure for the president anywhere else in the country, yet they chose to do so where the press would be sure to cover it.

Glory seekers and you guys are giving them the attention these whores desire. tsk, tsk.

0 Replies

Seems perfectly normal. People don't agree with the president attend a public forum where he was to share his ideas on the social security system. The people had a bumper sticker that was not pro Bush. They had t-shirts under their clothing that said "stop the lies". It does not state whether their outer clothing was open or if the t-shirts were found after a search. Does it matter? Are they not entitled to their opinions? Your president ensures that people don't see coffins returning from his war; prevents people from attending an open forum. Sure, he was not the person who stopped them. It was someone that was on staff to ensure that only those who might agree with the president were in attendance. Baldimo, asserts that they had the same t-shirts so they MUST be there to cause trouble. What is the definition, in this case, of causing trouble? Was this a Republican convention?

0 Replies

protest
when our former canadian prime minister , known as PET - pierre elliott trudeau , was confronted by a protester - it must have been in the '70's or '80's -, he took personal action. he tried to choke the guy and the RCMP had to protect the protester. PET didn't rely on others to do the dirty work, he did it himself.
he is also remembered - fondly by some - for uttering the "F" word in parliament, and when asked by the speaker what he had said, replied : " fuddle, duddle !". those two words have made it into the dictionary of canadian-english. hbg

...FUDDLE, DUDDLE...

0 Replies

Thank God for real Americans like some here and all over our fair land. By the way, you are fetching in your brown shirts. :wink: Laughing

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Seems perfectly normal. People don't agree with the president attend a public forum where he was to share his ideas on the social security system. The people had a bumper sticker that was not pro Bush. They had t-shirts under their clothing that said "stop the lies". It does not state whether their outer clothing was open or if the t-shirts were found after a search. Does it matter? Are they not entitled to their opinions? Your president ensures that people don't see coffins returning from his war; prevents people from attending an open forum. Sure, he was not the person who stopped them. It was someone that was on staff to ensure that only those who might agree with the president were in attendance. Baldimo, asserts that they had the same t-shirts so they MUST be there to cause trouble. What is the definition, in this case, of causing trouble? Was this a Republican convention?

So, you suppose they were innocent cherubs just wanting to enjoy a speech by the president? What do you suppose their motives were if not to create trouble?

0 Replies

Free speech doesn't do much good in a vacuum. Why shouldn't dissidents seek to exercise their freedom of speech where they're likely to get publicity? After all, it's not like they're the president who can simply call a press conference when he wants his views to be broadcast nationally. Indeed, since their dissent regards the actions of this specific public employee, it's quite fitting that they'd seek to express it at a public speech this public employee is delivering on publicly owned property.

And while I'd tend to agree that they're probably not 'cherubs' (I've known very few college dissidents who were angelic--though there was this one cutie...but I digress), I see no reason to doubt that they were innocent--innocent in that they had committed no crime and planned to commit no crime (unless they were terrorists with plastique-packed containers lodged in their anuses--suicide bombers using explosive butt-plugs). Exercising you constitutional right to free speech is not a crime.

0 Replies

Land of The Free ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know