Quarantining Dissent

[MisterMike]

MARS!

for this president, anyway.

:rofl:

Ah well...at least you haven't lost you're sense of humor.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Let's see if I've got this straight...Hizzoner sneaks into Iraq, prefectly OK, acceptable risk. Hizzoner lands on a carrier for a trumped-up photo op, not a problem, safety-wise. But let there be an 84-year-old in a wheelchair on the side of the road, bothering nobody but holding a placard...now THERE'S danger.

Ya know, Clinton's government didn't seem to spend a lot of time sweeping dissenters out of the way. If I recollect, we saw contra posters all the time. Reagan didn't do it either, did he?

It's shameful, and defending this on the grounds of trumped-up security concerns is shameful.

 

[MisterMike]

Oh my gosh..cue the sorrowful violin music and hand me a box of tissues...

Obviously some people will never understand just how things have changed after 9/11.

 

[michaeledward]

You know .. the irony just hit me.

Betty Hall, the Octegenarian arrested yesterday in Nashua, New Hampshire has held elective office longer than the President she was protesting.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Yes, that is passing strange. There's the enemy, though--a hard-headed old biddy from New England. Good for her.

2. How much the world has changed. Bushwa. Unless of course you choose to believe, with the Michael Savages of the world, that your fellow Americans are the enemy. Amazing and disturbing that Americans now claim to have no problems with the image of three cops grabbing an old lady in a wheelchair holding a sign, whatever's on the sign, whether she's right or wrong.

It's stuff like this that makes me recall the moment in Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," where a Navy Chief, watching about ten jackbooted American fascists beating an old man who's been peacefully protesting the US invasion of Mexico, wades in with both fists, saying, "Nine o'yuh to one grandpappy! Just about even!"

Good to know that in arguments, the moral aspect of martial arts goes right out the window.

Hey, I know. Let's hear some arguments about how it's become OK for soldiers and cops to torture suspects, given the national emergency.

I realize this is a bit pompous, but I do not care for the spectacle of Americans arguing for squashing dissent and dragging old ladies away to the pokey for exercising their Consitutional rights. Silly me...must be that liberalism.

You're arguing an absolutely indefensible position, you know. Barrry Goldwater must be spinning like an isotope separator...

 

[MisterMike]

And for even more "irony" isn't it strange that the same people who argue against profiling have their panties in a bunch over this arrest.

 

[loki09789]

Rob wrote"

"Hey, I know. Let's hear some arguments about how it's become OK for soldiers and cops to torture suspects, given the national emergency."


What can you say to this stuff that hasn't been said before....

"I hate to tell you guys, but we ain't gonna last 17 minutes. There gonna come in here, there gonna come in here and there gonna GET US..."

"Shut up, Hicks. This little girl survived longer than that - and with no training"

"Why don't you put her it charge!"

"Hicks, get it together, I need blue prints, floor plans anything"

"Okay, I'm ON it"

"HICKS, cool out.."

The TAO of Ripley according to Aliens. Interesting how even in "Liberal/Democratic/Tree huggy Hollywood" depictions/story telling of human interaction, those who focus on goals and plans instead of whining about the problems are 'main' characters, and the rest are supporting. Of course, I don't think any of us would look nearly as good as Sigourny Weaver in our skivvies....please don't respond, the image would give me nightmares.

 

[loki09789]

Good to know that in arguments, the moral aspect of martial arts goes right out the window.

Hey, I know. Let's hear some arguments about how it's become OK for soldiers and cops to torture suspects, given the national emergency.

I realize this is a bit pompous, but I do not care for the spectacle of Americans arguing for squashing dissent and dragging old ladies away to the pokey for exercising their Consitutional rights. Silly me...must be that liberalism.

You're arguing an absolutely indefensible position, you know. Barrry Goldwater must be spinning like an isotope separator...

So, because I recognize that professional martial artists (Secret Service/Military...) using their martial skill for real on a strategic/tactical level are applying the theory of distance control is immoral? I would say that is a little more objective observation and not fear/hate induced subjectivity - something that mental and physical control of martial training is suppose to help develop. I would love to play poker or sparr/fight you for money if you are this easy to inflame - talk about a lack of control. You have called me and others stupid, immoral, warmongers, blind.... insulting someone's character because you don't agree is really moral. Uh - oh, here comes the heat, now my pointed comment will be taken as an insult instead of an observation - 'this, sir, means war' - I love Bugs Bunny- modern adaptation of ancient Native American/Afro trickster symbolism.

Indefensible argument....because you say so? Because you believe everything you post to be true? Sounds a little dictatorial/childish to me.

"I'm right your wrong"
"Why?"
"Because I say so!"

Hail ROB!

If it ain't right for the POTUS (you were snide about this too) to be so brutish according to you, why is it okay for you to "TELL" us what is right or wrong?

This single scale/narrow observation of martial arts application is a perfect example of martial enthusiasts who think they are martial scholars commenting on tactics and strategies that they have little or no experience/knowledge. The crap that we learn out here in the civilian world is BASED on the same principles of tactics that they use for real on a different scale everyday.

By the way, we are seeing you falling victim of emotional response/'telephone' game type of error here because she wasn't 'dragged off' from her own quotes, she didn't resist and they carried her off. She herself said that she wasn't hurt or molested in anyway.

Ever see the "DOOMED" FED EX commercial?
"I'm FINE" says the little lady

"She's in shock, we're all DOOMED"
"DOOMED"

sound familiar?

Let me elevate the discussion to the Rob level of debate:

NO, I'm right! Tag your it.

 

[Tgace]

Brother you kill me!!

:rofl:

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee, speaking for the weenie point of view, I guess I thought that the purpose of martial arts, and of the military, was to protect little old ladies (however annoying) and the right of free speech/dissent. Thanks for the corrections, especially the ones based on some of my favorite movies.

I'd also be curious to see exactly where I have called anybody "stupid, blind, warmonger." (Especially warmonger, one of the dumbest terms I know.) You are leaping to a guess about what you think I think; just because you can't argue without calling names, don't leap to the conclusion that that's what I'm doing.

Glad to see, though, that the consensus logic is that of Good Old Uncle Joe Stalin. You know--"Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, so screw the kulaks."

And you bet I was snooty about the POTUS nonsense. His name's George (and that was a little old lady in a wheelchair, a fact y'all seem to find embarassing)...as Chuck Jones would be the first to tell ya. Go read his great autobiography.

No more for me on this. Enjoy the continued trashing of American values in favor of the fantasy of absolute security....wait...didn't that dirty old man Ben Franklin have something to say about that? No...it was Jefferson: "The Tree of Liberty must continually be refreshed by hauling crippled old women off to the pokey."

 

[loki09789]

"Good to know that in arguments, the moral aspect of martial arts goes right out the window."

Implying that my argument is immoral.

"It's shameful, and defending this on the grounds of trumped-up security concerns is shameful."

Therefore I am acting shameful....

"Thanks, though. Nothing is funnier than reading the intellectual/political contortions of people who are trying to justify having the cops haul off an 84-year-old woman in a wheelchair because she's holding a protest sign"

If it is funny to you, we are ridiculous....

"Especially when they've previously been arguing that Liberals Are Going To Take Over the Country and Crush Our Liberties."

Not my stance

"Sorry, but for all the "PC," idiots (fewer than suspected, I might add),"

Well, that speaks for itself.

"You're working, I'm afraid, out of a gimcrack definition of liberalism."

Long winded way of saying your stupid

"Still, congrats on finding the same excuses that these clowns have been using since the days of the Tsars"

By association, I am a clown if I am using the 'same excuses'. This is based on the Pax Americana argument that US is new ROME because we use the same structures and mechanisms...

"Apparently, some of you cannot tell the difference between personal attack (ad hominem arguments...look it up) and discussion, heated or otherwise, of ideas."

If we can't tell the difference, what are we then....Blind, stupid, manipulated, inferiors in perceptions/education/intellect relative to you?

"Hate to mention reality, but the picture posted showed her on the grass, out of the way"

As if we aren't looking realistically...

Dance on the edge of saying stupid by implying stupid and insulting, but it is not the grand leap that you want to claim. I have been led to the water of insult and have drunk of the implications. I don't think it is that hard to see.

 

[Makalakumu]

A few points, Paul.

1. I see your point regarding tone. Shouting back at someone who shouts at you is not a very good way to operate...yet, nice people rarely get anything done. Usually, they are tolerated until they get mean. Then they get capped. Case in point, MLK.

2. Open minded people aren't always nice. Especially when they see something that is an obvious attack on much of what they believe.

3. This forum is such a small view of a person's life and personality. Can you truly say that someone is doing "nothing but complaining about the system and doing nothing to change it" or is that just a stereotype on your part. Are you so sure our rhetoric doesn't fit our actions?

4. Why are you so certain that the status quo can be fixed through the ballot box? I will quote Stalin for one example, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Another is readily available but often ignored fact that both Bush and Kerry are "Skull and Bones".

Perhaps it will be as Sharp Phil elucidated, "nothing will change" which is exactly my point.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Also, I see the whole security argument failing when pictures of people wearing pro-bush shirts are carrying various pro-bush paraphenalia are allowed to go about their business with little intervention. The only people who are put into "free speech" zones are dissenters.

Lets assume it IS all about security though. And an enterprising terrorist decides to take the president's life. The plan is to go out and recruit a few clean cut, white, male and female suicide bombers. Find a Bush rally in a cold climate outside. Make a few puffy jackets emblazoned with American flags and pro-bush slogans. Teach them the pro-bush rhetoric. Strap them with some smooth body fitting explosives and zip up. While the dissenters are waving their signs in the "free speech" zone, the terrorists are remotely detonated as they shake the president's hand in one of those phony political photo ops.

Sure there are a lot of ways they could get caught in this scenario, but the fact remains - there ARE two standards and these standards are readily visible in photos of pro-bush rallies. If this was a security procedure, everyone should be treated the same. Wake up. THIS IS NOT HAPPENING!

upnorthkyosa

 

[loki09789]

If this was a security procedure, everyone should be treated the same. Wake up. THIS IS NOT HAPPENING!
upnorthkyosa

Why should everyone be treated the same? They should be scrutinized based on the same criteria, but treated differently depending on the way they come out on the check list. Do you 'treat the same' the threat of a side kick, punch, gun.... or do you apply the same principles in ways that may look different because they are adapted to the situation or threat.

So, we go from opinion to assertion, based on a thin little article.

In executive security, even well wishers are kept at a distance, minimal safe distance. Those who openly display a dissatisfaction will be kept farther away or removed - fitting a profile checklist that is standard to work from. I don't know what their specific procedures are, but I am sure that they are well trained.

The photos and story don't talk about shaking babies and hand kissing or photo ops....

Not discounting the weakness of 'assuming' that those carrying pro Bush posters are all good, I am sure they are being scanned, sniffed and observed very closely with other measures as well as the distance control measure.

Again, a basic analogy is the admitted child hater near your child. Would you leave him/her within arms reach of your toddler or keep him farther/move away? And if another person was oowing and aahhing all over your child, you wouldn't just 'assume' that they were completely safe and leave your child free rolling with them, but you would be watchful as you let the distance control adjust to the percieved threat level....Doesn't sound that unreasonable or different from Martial/Military tactics on our individual level of training.

I am looking at it from BOTH points of view, and in terms of 'crowd control' in this day and age, I see more security considerations in an age of chemical/bomb attacks. I see this article, and incidents like this as humorous, but not the image of a 'boot stepping on the face' of freedom of speech or anything nearly that incidious. So much for faith in man.

In this single incident, with only limited pictures of the total scene, and a very sketchy article on the story, it is much like your 'assumptions about the personality of the poster' comment - it is innaccurate to make judgement either way. Thus, I am saying that I am looking at these measures and descriptions as security procedures based on the info at hand.

It would be interesting to see the protection plan of the Secret Service Protection team, advance and observation teams, along with the SOP's of the local LEO detail there to assist to get their perspectives on it, but that isn't going to happen.

I wouldn't call the activation of National Guard/Reserves to beef up airport security, the restructuring of airport security procedures/individual checks.... as infringement. Inconvenient yes, but I think this incident is a funny look at how the public on one hand wants to be ensured that protective measures are being taken, yet don't appreciate or understand what these steps really will look like. A woman refused to move, she was removed.... oh well. No one beat her up. I don't know if she was told clearly where to move to, but if she wasn't told that clearly and moved to the subsequent locations based on her own initiative that is the fault of the people in charge of security for not communicating clearly from the beginning. IF she did know where she was suppose to move to, ignored those instructions and went 'where ever she saw fit' and was asked to move because of it - she is demonstrating an uncooperative behavior - non violent, but uncooperative.

"This forum is such a small view of a person's life and personality. Can you truly say that someone is doing "nothing but complaining about the system and doing nothing to change it" or is that just a stereotype on your part. Are you so sure our rhetoric doesn't fit our actions?"

As far as your question/comment above, the 'nothing' was contextual to this forum. And, base on the amount of responses specifying what people are 'doing', it seems like more complaining....

Back to my comment on all of this "it's only the internet" idea, Inegrity is what yo do when no one can see you... or there doesn't seem to be percieved 'consequences.'

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think one of the main arguements is the discrimination factor.
Pro-whatevers are allowed near, Antis are restricted to 'pre-approved disent zones' that are often out of sight of those who the message must get to.

The gap in logic of the decision is also questionable. The idea that the Pros are 'safe' is inheritly flawed.

But, then again, so was the decision to remove the Secret Service screen, the protective top of the limo, and changing the security setup for JFK's drive through Dallas on that fateful day.

IF! I were to be intent on harm to a particular individual, it would only seem logical to dress myself up in their colors, spout their rhetoric and get as close as I can. A fast acting poison on a plastic blade and a quick strike seems to be all that is needed. If I can see that, surely those who train for such things can see much more. I highly doubt that some would-be assassin would draw major attention to themselves by wearing 'enemy' colors.

It is our right as Americans to protest, peacefully. It is our right to say such wonderful things as "George Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to the US", and not be beaten, tortured, locked up and forgotten.....unless of course you are of Arab decent in which case you have no rights and deserve the rubber hose you murderous bastards. (For those without a clue...that is sarcasm...I often find I must specify else be taken seriously.)

The President must speak with the voice of the people. You know that "We The People" part so many forget about. How can he do that if he is sheltered from the opposing voice? But, then again, the office of president was originally created to be a figurehead replacement for the king. Funny how over time, more and more "Kingly" powers have been granted. How long before we do have a true American Imperium?

 

[Makalakumu]

Again, a basic analogy is the admitted child hater near your child. Would you leave him/her within arms reach of your toddler or keep him farther/move away? And if another person was oowing and aahhing all over your child, you wouldn't just 'assume' that they were completely safe and leave your child free rolling with them, but you would be watchful as you let the distance control adjust to the percieved threat level....Doesn't sound that unreasonable.

It is unreasonable to have two standards of security for two types of people. Profiling someone based on their political beliefs is completely anti-american and the anti-thesis of free speech.

Also, I think you are assuming that I am referring to the article that was posted earlier. In fact, I am not solely referring to that article. The tone of my reference is more general. Look at ANY pro-bush rally and you will see the same.

This is not a security issue. Terrorists are like water. They find the easiest path. If the easiest path is to pretend to be a pro-bush supporter, then that is what they will do. The Secret Service should treat everyone the same in order to truly be SAFE. That is not the case.

Again, this is blatently quarentining dissent. I also would like to see a brief protocal of SS procedure. I would be willing to bet that everyone is treated equally. They are being ordered by their bosses to form these "free speech" areas - its the only explanation that makes any sense when you really look at it from a security point of view.

 

[someguy]

Are terrorists really like water though? Water does not try to go with something spectacular some terrorists do.
If your going to remove a group protesting you must also remove a group supporting.

 

[loki09789]

It is unreasonable to have two standards of security for two types of people. Profiling someone based on their political beliefs is completely anti-american and the anti-thesis of free speech.

So, the rapists and murderers/serial killers should be in with the white collar criminals in minimum security prisons and such.... that would be equal security measures for everyone as well.

It is unreasonable to assess the threat or profile based on two types of standards. What tactical decisions and actions you make based on that threat assessment will change with the variables that you plug into that threat assessment.

You wouldn't treat a shop lifter who is basically being cooperative the same way that you would if he was threatening you with hate and discontent, and 'protesting' your actions. You would still be tactical and alert, but you wouldn't treat him the same way in both instances. You would use the same threat assessement but make different decisions based on observed data. It isn't the political beliefs that are being plugged into the assessment criteria, it is the potential for threat. It is a continuum, a checklist, a set of observable ques that are used to make tactical decisions. One of these could be the obvious 'anti-' whatever presentation. I notice no one wants to see how it works on our daily level of protection logic with our children and the two strangers.

As martial arts teachers, we deal with people and assess them as well. Hopefully, we are using one standard of assessment but are dealing with these students in individual ways. Whether you are manipulating/assessing people for education or security, you assess the situation come up with a plan based on the variables and execute that plan.

And no one is telling these demonstrators that they can not speak their minds, but - like the obvious child hater when I am protecting my child, it won't be close enough to pose a possible threat to my child, or my principle.

Obviously, with either political or protective motivations, it is creating a negative image that I would agree is leaving a bad taste in civil liberties minded folks. While I won't agree that it is intentional or primarily designed for the squashing of free speech, I would say that it demonstrates a poor 'finger on the pulse' of the citizenry from the Administration/Security/POTUS'. The cowboy way isn't making friends in lowly places

 

[MisterMike]

This whole quarentining dissent term is really quite funny. Isn't what is actually going on is quarentining the President from the dissenters?

They can go anywhere they want, just not so close to him.

This President is fully aware of the protests and opposition at every turn he takes. Yet he does not read the papers, TV, internet news, etc. He has faith in what he is doing and will certainly own up to anything he has done come election time. And when that time comes, he has faith that the people of this country will vote him out if they like someone better or keep him in if they feel he made the right choices.

 

[loki09789]

This whole quarentining dissent term is really quite funny. Isn't what is actually going on is quarentining the President from the dissenters?

They can go anywhere they want, just not so close to him.

This President is fully aware of the protests and opposition at every turn he takes. Yet he does not read the papers, TV, internet news, etc. He has faith in what he is doing and will certainly own up to anything he has done come election time. And when that time comes, he has faith that the people of this country will vote him out if they like someone better or keep him in if they feel he made the right choices.

watch it MM, here come the "your only a programmed drone of the system because you don't agree with us" comments.

Wake UP!