Dixie Chicks withdraw apology to Bush

Advocate wrote:

MM, would you explain what you mean.

Are you saying that the nonspeakers have the right to block their ears? Who would deny that!

The protesters that are not allowed to be near the President are NOT having their free speech rights violated.
They are being allowed to say whatever they want.

However,since there is no "right to be heard",they were moved to an area that only those that WANTED to hear them could,by going to them.

Since the President and others didnt want to hear them,they were not forced to be near them.

So,the right to free speech was upheld,but the rest of the people werent forced to hear them.

Everyone won.

0 Replies

We also have the right to peacefully assemble. Putting people in remote sites where both sides of the issue cannot see or hear them is a denial of that right.

0 Replies

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.

Mysteryman, you seem to think that it's citizens who should be seen but not heard.

The freedom of speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and of their right to petition the Government are clearly delineated in the First Amendment. Abridgement of those rights is an assault on all the citizens of the USA. Even you.

No right to be heard by passing public figures on a public street, paid for by your own taxes?? What country is that? Singapore? Iran? North Korea?
How does one petition his government without being heard?

Just what kind of country do you want to live in, Mysteryman? A place where everyone follows the dictates of the ruling powers? I can get you a plane ticket, because if you're within the borders of the USA, you're in the wrong country.

Please name the country whose citizens have your version of limited rights and I will forward you a one way ticket there tonight.

Joe(Oh, maybe you got it confused with CHILDREN should be seen and not heard.)Nation

0 Replies

Just toilet paper?

McGentrix wrote:

pachelbel wrote:
McG is trying to figure out how to argue his way out of this one

I will be pleasantly surprised if he responds intelligently to the article a few posts above this one.

Apparently he doesn't know about the arrests that have been taking place. He's as well insulated as BushCo.

Am I? Huh. Thought I was doing other stuff.

You are welcome to read and post whatever screeds you like. It doesn't matter how biased, or retarded it is. There is no real point trying to tell you otherwise, as by your many anti-American posts you have decided that America is a facist country that is run by a dictator that runs a gestapo like whatever.

None of it's true of course, but you go on believing it.

Capitol Hill Blue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush on the Constitution: 'Just a goddamned piece of paper'
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 9, 2005, 06:39

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the **** that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democratic, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine - in the end - if something is legal or right.

Every federal official - including the President - who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States.

As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that it's perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years - a record for any modern President, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."

And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."

And you, McG, keep believing that you live in a free country. I am more American than you because I believe in upholding the Constitution, whereby you think it's a thing to be tampered with, like Bush, or something to wipe your A** with.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

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.

Mysteryman, you seem to think that it's citizens who should be seen but not heard.

The freedom of speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and of their right to petition the Government are clearly delineated in the First Amendment. Abridgement of those rights is an assault on all the citizens of the USA. Even you.

No right to be heard by passing public figures on a public street, paid for by your own taxes?? What country is that? Singapore? Iran? North Korea?
How does one petition his government without being heard?

Just what kind of country do you want to live in, Mysteryman? A place where everyone follows the dictates of the ruling powers? I can get you a plane ticket, because if you're within the borders of the USA, you're in the wrong country.

Please name the country whose citizens have your version of limited rights and I will forward you a one way ticket there tonight.

Joe(Oh, maybe you got it confused with CHILDREN should be seen and not heard.)Nation

Where does it say you have the right to be heard?

Where does it say that I or anyone else MUST listen to what you say,or even acknowledge you POV?

It doesnt.
All it says is you have the right to free speech.

Say whatever you want,but nobody has to listen.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
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.

Mysteryman, you seem to think that it's citizens who should be seen but not heard.

The freedom of speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble and of their right to petition the Government are clearly delineated in the First Amendment. Abridgement of those rights is an assault on all the citizens of the USA. Even you.

No right to be heard by passing public figures on a public street, paid for by your own taxes?? What country is that? Singapore? Iran? North Korea?
How does one petition his government without being heard?

Just what kind of country do you want to live in, Mysteryman? A place where everyone follows the dictates of the ruling powers? I can get you a plane ticket, because if you're within the borders of the USA, you're in the wrong country.

Please name the country whose citizens have your version of limited rights and I will forward you a one way ticket there tonight.

Joe(Oh, maybe you got it confused with CHILDREN should be seen and not heard.)Nation

Where does it say you have the right to be heard?

Where does it say that I or anyone else MUST listen to what you say,or even acknowledge you POV?

It doesnt.
All it says is you have the right to free speech.

Say whatever you want,but nobody has to listen.

Of course you're absolutely correct MM. That is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution. They never REALLY intended that people should be able to say what they want and actually have their ELECTED representatives HEAR them. What a silly thought. I thought we were talking about America, where freedom of speech was unobstructed and no FREE ZONES were created that only represented people who AGREE with the current president. We're talking about Cuba, right? (Probably too obtuse for you to get, MM and McGen. Sorry - I'll try & keep it simple next time Laughing

)

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

(Probably too obtuse for you to get, MM and McGen. Sorry - I'll try & keep it simple next time )

Don't sell yourself short ... that post was both obtuse and simple.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

pachelbel wrote:
(Probably too obtuse for you to get, MM and McGen. Sorry - I'll try & keep it simple next time )

Don't sell yourself short ... that post was both obtuse and simple.

And absolutely on point which is the reason for your snide, un-clever, remark which doesn't address anything.

Joe(what country, MM, ??I'm shipping you there tomorrow)Nation

0 Replies

I have always found it interesting that not a single "real" news agancy has any mention of that powerful, damning story.

You'd think Bush saying something as outlandish as "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" would at least get a sub-note somewhere on cnn.com, or BBC or truthout.com, or snopes, or anyplace not a liberal blog or other shitrag. How odd. It's as if it's a... LIE. Doug Thompson should be ashamed of himself for being such a scumbag.

Other then taking Thompson's word, which I am sure the liberal whelps are more then willing to do as his teats are full of the hate they like, there is NO, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA evidence that Bush said anything like what Thompson has alledged. Yet, the gullible swallow it whole for no other reason then it slams Bush.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
(Probably too obtuse for you to get, MM and McGen. Sorry - I'll try & keep it simple next time )

Don't sell yourself short ... that post was both obtuse and simple.

And absolutely on point which is the reason for your snide, un-clever, remark which doesn't address anything.

Joe(what country, MM, ??I'm shipping you there tomorrow)Nation

Sorry, I was mainly trying to point out to pachelbel that the word "obtuse" does not probably mean what he/she thinks it means. Maybe I was too obtuse in my effort (and obviously not terribly clever)?

I know you folks like to fantasize that in between snacks on kittens, Bush devises ways to further demolish the Constitution, but I think you would do well to not lose sight of the fact that Clinton was the first President to establish "free speech zones," and the Democrats thought so highly of Clinton's "free-speech zones" that they used them for their Conventions in Los Angeles in 2000, and Boston in 2004 (though they called them "demonstration zones"). Even though I know pachelbel's main point was to bash America in general -- in keeping with his/her running theme -- the focus, though, seems to be on Bush and Republicans, when the "blame" deserves to be spread around.

In the US, the government can interfere with free expression in order to further legitimate state interests by making content-neutral regulations on the time and location of the speech, consistent with the Constitution. Keeping the peace is obviously a legitimate state interest. It is sheer fantasy to say that "in America, Freedom of Speech is unobstructed." However, where I have a problem is the regulation ought to apply to supporters as well as protesters, otherwise it is not content-neutral. Do these "free-speech" or "demonstration" zones chill free speech? Possibly, and that is obviously a question for the Supreme Court to tackle.

Tico(I've a hankering for a little kitty on a cracker)Maya

0 Replies

Pach, shame on you for not realizing that the right can refrain from listening, and that a remote zone doesn't make a mockery of free speech and peaceably assembling.

It is wonderful how the right looks up to, and respects, Bill Clinton. Tico says that Clinton created the zone. We all know that Clinton is always correct. My god, the right is right in defining itself by reference to Clinton. Thus, the zone is legally unassailable.

0 Replies

Quote:

In the US, the government can interfere with free expression in order to further legitimate state interests by making content-neutral regulations on the time and location of the speech, consistent with the Constitution. Keeping the peace is obviously a legitimate state interest. It is sheer fantasy to say that "in America, Freedom of Speech is unobstructed." However, where I have a problem is the regulation ought to apply to supporters as well as protesters, otherwise it is not content-neutral. Do these "free-speech" or "demonstration" zones chill free speech? Possibly, and that is obviously a question for the Supreme Court to tackle.

Good for you, tico (and I apologize for being so snippy) you've defined exactly the problem that arises from "zones for the nays, but not for the yeas".

I think the concept goes back farther than Clinton (he was not, as some conservatives think the inventor of all that is evil)

I remember from the earliest protests I was in (1965) efforts by police to segregate opposing sides, which often resulted in whichever side having the most unfavorable opinions vis a vis the government getting the equivalent of obstructed view seats in the upper deck to express themselves. (Boston 9/66 We were placed two blocks away from the Army Recruiting Office. Rolling Eyes

)

In 1968, at the Democratic Convention (the whole world is watching" )police first forced protesters into a city park and then decided to roust them in a what became a police riot. That same year, Republicans showed how to do it the real authoritarian way, they held their convention on the island of Miami Beach...it was a simple matter to blockade the bridges with checkpoints to keep out any unsavory thinkers,, er voters.

Not a proud set of moments for our republic.

Joe(In Boston Sept '66, they ran us down with horses.)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

I think the concept goes back farther than Clinton (he was not, as some conservatives think the inventor of all that is evil)

I was basing my comment on this entry in Wikipedia:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone]Wikipedia[/url] wrote:

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones and Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. Although such zones were first instituted by the Clinton administration, ...

Tico(He may not have invented it all, but he made it his own)Maya

0 Replies

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pictures/Jun06/010606Dixie.jpg

0 Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Nation wrote:
I think the concept goes back farther than Clinton (he was not, as some conservatives think the inventor of all that is evil)
*************************************************************
Ticomaya wrote:
I was basing my comment on this entry in Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones and Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. Although such zones were first instituted by the Clinton administration, ...

Tico(He may not have invented it all, but he made it his own)Maya
**********************************************************
THANKS FOR THE GREAT POST, TICOMAYA. YOU REALLY STUCK IT TO CLINTON!!!!

0 Replies

And this is the actual quote from wikipedia. You left out a bit, Tico.....

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones and Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. Although such zones were first instituted by the Clinton administration [citation needed], they gained more attention after the WTO Meeting of 1999 and have been used vigorously by the George W. Bush administration. Civil libertarians claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials. the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone. [2]. The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves." [3][/size]

***************
Who began the Free Speech Zones really doesn't matter. What DOES matter is that is exists. I find the last statement particularly interesting and worrisome. A hypocrite like Bush who defends 'freedom in Iraq' whatever in hell that means won't provide his own citizens with it.

0 Replies

Pachelbel wrote:

Who began the Free Speech Zones really doesn't matter.

And I say that:

Who began the Russian Revolution doesn't matter.

HOW RIDICULOUS!!!

Of course it matters. It sets a precedent!!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Pachelbel wrote:

Who began the Free Speech Zones really doesn't matter.

And I say that:

Who began the Russian Revolution doesn't matter.

HOW RIDICULOUS!!!

Of course it matters. It sets a precedent!!!!

Which BushCo avidly enforces. I thought it didn't really matter to you, BernardR, if you had freedom of speech or not? The fact is, you DO NOT - so what are you going to do about it?

What I said is -it does not matter who started it - it's a done deal. What matters is what are you going to DO about it?

You can't protest that you don't have free speech. Bit of a Catch 22 there. Cool

0 Replies

What am I going to do about it? Well, I don't know where you are from but I learned many years ago that in the United States, we operate under the rule of law and under a balance of powers between the three branches of government. I have complete faith in the courts( in this case, perhaps, the Supreme Court) top adjudicate any matters which a party who has standing presents to the Court because it may be unconstitutional. You are, of course, aware that the question concerning the prisoners at Guantanamo was submitted to the US Supreme Court and that findings were made that certain rights had to be given to the prisoners and that the Congress along with the president were to be able to set up courts which would protect those rights. I am sure that if the so-called Free Speech Zones are judged by someone with standing to be unconstitutional, that matter will also be adjudicated.

If you don't understand that, pachelbel, there is nothing more that can be said.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:
I think the concept goes back farther than Clinton (he was not, as some conservatives think the inventor of all that is evil)

I was basing my comment on this entry in Wikipedia:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone]Wikipedia[/url] wrote:
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones and Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. Although such zones were first instituted by the Clinton administration, ...

Tico(He may not have invented it all, but he made it his own)Maya

I think all the folks did in those long ago days in the 1990's was LABEL what had already been a common -and as yet unruled, unconstitutional - practice by US city police. Why don't you help out the Wiki writers and actually get a citation for their "first instituted by the Clinton Administration" assertion?

The art and practice of protesting has (sorry, IDers,) evolved since I first stood in the streets of Boston circa 1965. We just showed up in front of the Arlington Street church clutching our poster boards stapled onto eight foot one bys. Today, depending on the cop, you might be stopped from carrying such a potential weapon. (sigh) Officer, I'm a pacifist, I don't need weapons, I have words. ... .

I wonder what Martin Luther King would have thought about "free speech zones"?

The very term is so Orwellian.

"This is the zone where you can speak freely in our free country, but over there in our free country, because that's not in the free speech zone, you cannot speak freely in our free country." Huh?

Would anyone have paid the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-VietNam War Movement, the Women's Rights Movement (including the Suffragette Movement), the Unionist Movements of the 1930's and 40's and 50's any mind at all if their speakers and proponents had been corralled away in some distant "free speech zone".

Free speech zones and the vigilant screening of all attendees at what are supposed to be public appearances by public officials and candidates are unquestionably attempts at chilling the right of free speech and, worse, inoculating certain of those public officials and candidates from coming in contact with persons (citizens, remember them?) opposed to their philosophy.

Recent studies of allergic children have shown that one possible cause of their affliction was triggered by keeping them in too clean an environment. (citation needed heh heh). So to it is with politicians, especially those whose instincts seem to run towards the restriction of rights, they need to rub up against those things and ideas which they fear the most. It would do their body good and be beneficial to freedom.

Joe(The Free Speech Zone is the entire area of the fifty States)Nation

0 Replies

Dixie Chicks withdraw apology to Bush

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know