Land of The Free ?

From DTOM's link..."``We don't know who it was, but we'll find out who it was and we'll sue him,''

Now,I gotta ask.if they dont know who it was,then how will they find out.
And if they dont find out,who are they gonna sue?

This whole thing is a joke,and it wont ever go to court.

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?

mysteryman wrote:

From DTOM's link..."``We don't know who it was, but we'll find out who it was and we'll sue him,''

Now,I gotta ask.if they dont know who it was,then how will they find out.
And if they dont find out,who are they gonna sue?

This whole thing is a joke,and it wont ever go to court.

damn, mystery. is that all that you got out of the story?

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?

McGentrix wrote:

So, you suppose they were innocent cherubs just wanting to enjoy a speech by the president?

No, they wanted to protest.

McGentrix wrote:

What do you suppose their motives were if not to create trouble?

Protest equals "creating trouble"?

McGentrix wrote:

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?

Oh, I didn't realize that it was Republican policy to prevent anyone not of your ilk to attend a public place where your Republican president is trying to convince the public that he knows what he is talking about. God forbid that anyone should ever question your dear George Bush. What was I thinking? All reds on the left and all blues on the right, err change places and dosey doe your partner.

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

So, you suppose they were innocent cherubs just wanting to enjoy a speech by the president?

No, they wanted to protest.

McGentrix wrote:

What do you suppose their motives were if not to create trouble?

Protest equals "creating trouble"?

Well, yeah. Has there ever been a protest over anything that did not create trouble in one form or another?

You didn't realize that for a reason as it's not really policy.

This incident was a non-starter created by 3 in"duh"viduals who had no good intentions yet expected to have their freedom of speech to be more important than anyone elses. That's how it works in the liberal mind, right? Liberal speech is considered a right, yet criticism of that speech is nothing but censorship and oppression, right?

McGentrix wrote:

nimh wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

So, you suppose they were innocent cherubs just wanting to enjoy a speech by the president?

No, they wanted to protest.

McGentrix wrote:

What do you suppose their motives were if not to create trouble?

Protest equals "creating trouble"?

Well, yeah. Has there ever been a protest over anything that did not create trouble in one form or another?

Like when those treasonous bastards dumped all that tea in Boston Harbor that time... someone should have locked 'em up immediately.... look at all the touble that caused...... face it McGentrix old boy it's only trouble if you dont like it.... well, too bad.

The Swift Boat Vets...they protested and I'll bet you didn't have a problem with that.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/21/131832/259

Turns out the WH was lying about the three youths who were ejected from a Bush rally in Denver for having a 'no blood for oil' bumper sticker; a secret service review has found that it was, in fact, a paid WH staffer, not a volunteer, who kicked out the three, in direct contradiction of McClellan's claims.

Cycloptichorn

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

Bully for them!

(witless emoticon removed in the interest of good taste)

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else. (emphasis added)

Personally, i was raised in Eisenhower America, and told in school that it is a citizen's duty to speak out against wrong doing. No one ever suggested that this would be characterized as "making trouble."