Quarantining Dissent

[MisterMike]

Boy, I sho wish somewun would edum'cate us dum folk. We's just spoutin' the same point o' view three timez and still otha folk are arguin' a point nobuddy made.

Maybe if we were communist, we could all pool into one single intellectual bank account.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

nani?


Nixon used the police and secret service to shield himself from public protests against him, going so far on at least 1 occasion to have a lone protester across the street removed by the SS.

Bush's use (or the use on his behalf by others in his administration) of local police forces and the SS echo those used by President Nixon.

Nixons actions were found to be illegal.

While the safety of the President and his associates is of importance, it can not out weigh the civil liberties and rights of the people as specified in law and the Constitution. You can not destroy one to save the other, without impacting on both.

I have every right to go to George Bush and tell him I believe he is wrong. One of our biggest points is "By the People, For the People." If our leaders are out of touch with the people, we have become a society ruled by an elected aristocracy and given up on one of the cornerstones of our Republic.

Simply put, the problem is less people are voting than before. Our leaders are led by the noses by PAC and SIG and don't do what is 'right'. Protestors are being cracked down on repeatedly.

-The majority of the violence in Seattle at the trade conf. was caused by local police.
-Anti war protestors in NYC and other places were bullied, harrassed and attacked by local police.
-Anti Bush protestors are restricted to "free speech" zones, well out of sight and hearing of Bush.
-The mainstreme media in order to preserve their access to GW doesn't report on these abuses.
-etc.

Last I read, with the exception of a few high security areas, the entire US was a Free Speech zone...not just a few blocks down the street and around the corner. Is that still true, or has 1984 arrived, just 20 years late?

 

[MisterMike]

Sumimasen...

I wasn't refering to your post Kaith. At least I can repsect both points of view before resorting to attacks on people's intellect.*cough* the post above yours.

Also, in the same way things are heading to Orwell's 1984, it seems people are going in the reverse back to the 60's with this whole peace mentality.

While I agree we can go straight to the Prez and voice our concerns, security today is a little different. I don't think anyone in going to get "in his face" about anything, nor any future president.

Of course, where do you draw the line? A 3 foot perimiter around him, the edge of the street, the edge of the lawn... I've asked this before from the "intellectually rich" and haven't gotten an answer. Rightly so, in the face of the security concerns we have today.

 

[rmcrobertson]

"If we were communists....this whole peace mentality...I agree we can go straight to the President."

If you really want your ideas, your arguments, your facts, to be respected, you'll really need a little better stuff than that. And let's not even get into the moral status of deriding, "that peace stuff," though peace is admittedly a concept utterly foreign to, say, the Gospels.

I say again...dragging an old lady in a wheelchair off, because she tried to--I believe, "petition for a redress of grievances," is the phrase--is shameful, as common sense should tell ya. Defending such an action is ludicrous--as the proliferation of acronyms, abbreviations, and pseudo-military terminology should show.

The notion that this old woman might somehow be a threat...whoof. Lay off the reviews of, "In the Line of Fire," and "Day of the Jackal." The history tells you, if you'll bother to look, that assassins are not clever. (Neither are terrorists, really.) They're simply nuts, and determined. (OK...Leon Czolgosz wrapped his hand in a big bandage...oooh, VERY sly.) These exploding wheelchairs and death-lasers-made-from-tubing-and-a-wedding-ring are TV fantasy.

Again, I find the political correctness remarkable. Apparently, all sorts of absurd violations of civil liberties and contorted explanations of those violations are perfectly permissible, provided you don't like the politics of the people you see hauled off to jail. I'd known that since Nixon, but I hadn't fully understood how willingly core principles (you know...treat the elderly with patience and respect, no matter how annoying they get) would be dumped, in order to keep ONE OLD LADY IN A WHEELCHAIR from holding up a protest sign.

I guess the Republicans just can't take it.

And oh, incidentally, did anybody notice all the trial balloons about pumping up troop strength in Iraq? Looks like if we're going back to 1964, it sure ain't because of all that peace stuff.

 

[MisterMike]

"If we were communists....this whole peace mentality...I agree we can go straight to the President."

If you really want your ideas, your arguments, your facts, to be respected, you'll really need a little better stuff than that. And let's not even get into the moral status of deriding, "that peace stuff," though peace is admittedly a concept utterly foreign to, say, the Gospels. "


Choose to ignore and quote out of context all you want. Things like that will not get your comments respected - at least not by anyone I should care about. As for being a peacenik, if that's your perrogative while we have planes used as missiles (as if that didn't take any planning), well go ahead and get out your popcorn, because there's more stuff like that coming.

Nobody's deriding peace, just the anti-war climate. An you're right we don't need a whole thread dedicated to how you are wrong on all of the Gospels praising war.




"I say again...dragging an old lady in a wheelchair off, because she tried to--I believe, "petition for a redress of grievances," is the phrase--is shameful, as common sense should tell ya. Defending such an action is ludicrous--as the proliferation of acronyms, abbreviations, and pseudo-military terminology should show. "


Again, you can cling to that reason as the ONLY thing they had in mind (like you can read minds right) and refuse to believe that people should follow the law. As for the military terminology - I dunno where that all came about..I'll let someone else take that one on.





"The notion that this old woman might somehow be a threat...whoof. Lay off the reviews of, "In the Line of Fire," and "Day of the Jackal." The history tells you, if you'll bother to look, that assassins are not clever. (Neither are terrorists, really.) They're simply nuts, and determined. (OK...Leon Czolgosz wrapped his hand in a big bandage...oooh, VERY sly.) These exploding wheelchairs and death-lasers-made-from-tubing-and-a-wedding-ring are TV fantasy."


Really???? Perhaps some modern day terrorists and assassins. Somewhere I seem to recall seeing a Ninjutsu board on this website tho...They are probably not studying anything clever though. But if your perspective on terrorists and assassins is shared by our current administration (and it isn't) we ARE in a world of doo-doo.




"Again, I find the political correctness remarkable. Apparently, all sorts of absurd violations of civil liberties and contorted explanations of those violations are perfectly permissible, provided you don't like the politics of the people you see hauled off to jail. I'd known that since Nixon, but I hadn't fully understood how willingly core principles (you know...treat the elderly with patience and respect, no matter how annoying they get) would be dumped, in order to keep ONE OLD LADY IN A WHEELCHAIR from holding up a protest sign.

I guess the Republicans just can't take it."





Well, I seem to recall stating I would be for the same treatment of the NRA guy shouting as well. If you aren't in the right spot, you gotta move. So if you think you got an ounce of evidence I am one sided on this politically, do some more digging.



"And oh, incidentally, did anybody notice all the trial balloons about pumping up troop strength in Iraq? Looks like if we're going back to 1964, it sure ain't because of all that peace stuff."

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh my goodness, no. NOT an, "anti-war climate." Hint, dude. if you want to actually argue your ideas effectively in this case, you need to quit painting yourself into corners.

Don't position yourself as pro-war and anti-peace this way. Argue that you too are all in favor of peace, you just want the real thing rather than a pie-in-the-sky illusion. Argue that you too are in favor of social justice and civil rights, you simply have different ideas about how these are to be secured. Skip the "communism," approach--which you brought up--because it exposes the weakness of your political and intellectual position.

And actually those Sept. 11th a.......s? Don't argue how sophisticated they were, because that's absurd. Their supposed technological sophistication and organizational cleverness...bushwa. It's a stereotype--sorry, but probably a racial stereotype--about the Subtle Oriental Mind (go read Said's "Orientalism") that goes back before the Evil Dr. Fu Manchu. All they did was sneak a few box-cutters through lousy security at the airport, after the government screwed up in catching them at the border. Fact of the matter is, we CANNOT "seal our borders," or obtain perfect safety, and some of our fantasies about achieving this are dangerous. Especially the ones about Americans being the Enemy--check under your beds and Keep Watching the Skies!--that folks seem to be adopting unthinkingly from the likes of Michael Savage.

Instead, argue that we really do have enemies, they're determined to hurt us, and that it is unrealistic to think otherwise.

You're hanging onto a ridiculous position about arresting/blocking/banning protest. Follow a basic martial arts principle--bend like the willow, give into the idea that WE SHOULD NOT BE SHOVING OLD PEOPLE AROUND, and explain why her ideas are idiotic.

Of course, your other problem is that I've seen every single one of your arguments before. Between 1964 and 1972....but if you wanna support this country's insane war in Vietnam, well, that (at the moment) is your right as an American.

One of the worst things about so-called conservative positions (they aren't: they're actually radically corporatist) is that they have led to obscenities like that clown from Georgia who ran--successfully!--against Max Cleland (lost both legs and an arm fighting in Vietnam) on the grounds that he was unpatriotic, and hated America. It's shameful, and I hope that some of you guys are able to figure this out sooner or later.

 

[MisterMike]

Well actually just because I am not for the anti-war crowd, who by my definition would never go to war, does not make me a supporter of the folks who are just as far on the opposite side of the fence. My friendly advice to you, and I mean it sincerely, is to not box people up into categories. Also your closing comment on Conservatives and Coproratism really doesn't concern me. But then we go back to that whole "What is a Liberal/Conservative thing."

Also, my saying that the terrorists were clever was in no way to praise them or based on stereotype. There was more involved than box cutters. There were Visas, airline training, yes boxcutters, evaluation of our airline security systems (all-be-it they are shabby but people still blame the President instead).

As for moving the old people, yes, bad judgement on the part of the POLICE. But then they are trying to look good for you-know-who.

OK, here's the bending willow. The issue is how do we keep security while not stepping on everyone's rights. Anotehr example, the Patroit Act. There's going to be some bad with the good. The same way that when most people vote, it's the lesser of 2 evils, but I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here now.

But it just ticks me off at what people blame the President for. Maybe from now on I should just silently roll my eyes.

 

[loki09789]

But it just ticks me off at what people blame the President for. Maybe from now on I should just silently roll my eyes.

Join me at the bar (coffee that is) Mike, I have been watching with amusement for a little while now.

 

[MisterMike]

Join me at the bar (coffee that is) Mike, I have been watching with amusement for a little while now.

Yes, sometiems I get on here and take some whipping at the post for our side. :boing2:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

But it just ticks me off at what people blame the President for.

I think the problem is, its easier to say "that damn Bush" or "that bastard Clinton", etc. than to seek the real cause of the issue.

People often forget that things usually must go through the proper chanels. Those channels are of course the Senate, and the House, as well as the advisors of the currently sitting President.

The whole Iraq situation is -not- George W. Bush's fault.
It is the fault of those spineless followers in Congress who in a moment of panic, gave him the power to set things in motion that brought us to this point.
It was the removal of certain checks and balances that caused other problems.

Considering the number of things a sitting president must deal with, he can't be expected to watch the news, read the paper, etc. He must rely on the information of his advisors.

There is an saying "Garbage in, Garbage out".
If your data is suspect, so are your conclusions.

I don't believe that W is actively behind alot of the crap. I do however believe there are those within his administration who are. This administration has been refered to in the alternative press as the "scandel of the week club" due to all the problems they are surrounded with. 1 man can't be that much of a dunderhead.

Some discenting stories that are quietly 'not-reported':
- The 15 nation Caribbean Community unanimously decided not to reconize the US-occupation government in Haiti. In Responce, Bush National Security Advisor Rice threatened Jamaican government with action unless they shipped the toppled Haitian president to Africa. This action would place Jamaica on the same list as Thailand, Stria, Somalia and the Philippines.
- Why did the Bush administration ignore signs of impending Al-Qaida attacks despite a request for a cabinet-level meeting in Jan 2001, a July 2001 FBI report and an August 2001 -personal- briefing? Then again, why did they suspend FBI monitoring of Al-Qaida members in the US prior to the 9/11 attacks? AG Reno listed a terroristic threat as the #1 concern. AG Ashcroft however didn't consider it an issue at all.

Stifling discent can take many forms. The mainstreme news sources don't touch this. As a result, many of the problems caused by Bush Administration policies are known only to small groups. Control the information, control the masses.

It's not a new policy. It is just being done at a larger level than ever before.

Anyone besides me wonder why gas prices are so high?
Can it have anything to do with US refineries not able to keep up with demand? The raw oil is here, we just can't process the stuff fast enough.
Could it have something to do with an administration with -heavy- ties to the oil industry? (Personally, I'd rather have a carrier named after me, not a tanker, but hey....)

Just food for thought.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Um, 'scuse me for paying attention, but who marched us into Iraq? And pardon me for reality, but who's the head of the government? And excuse my history, but how come it's only been the Republicans who seem to've been finding that dissent needs quarantining?

"...the anti-war crowd, who by my definition would never go to war, does not make me a supporter of the folks who are just as far on the opposite side of the fence. My friendly advice to you, and I mean it sincerely, is to not box people up into categories." Hm. No boxings there.

And who is it who's boxing people, "up into categories?" You know--like me, communists, LITTLE OLD WOMEN IN WHEELCHAIRS (I capitalize in hope that at some point, the ludicrousness will become apparent), and terrorists, all of whom you have repeatedly and insistently connected?

Must be some a' those binary oppositions I keep mentioning have crept into yer discourse without your being aware....if I were going to box people up, in an equivalent fashion, I'd start yakkin' about your intellectual common ground with all sorts of rightist nut groups and murdering creeps like Timothy McVeigh...

And as for the whole, "being whipped," thing....hm.

 

[loki09789]

Um, 'scuse me for paying attention, but ...And pardon me for reality, but ....And excuse my history,
Must be some a' those binary oppositions I keep mentioning have crept into yer discourse without your being aware....if I were going to box people up, in an equivalent fashion, I'd start yakkin' about your intellectual common ground with all sorts of rightist nut groups and murdering creeps like Timothy McVeigh...
"being whipped," thing....hm.

Wow, with this kind of intellectual discourse no wonder I am bowing to the reasonable mindedness of the discussion. Honestly, plug in whatever data you want, but this stuff reads like an old Steve Martin Saturday Night Live act, or one of those "Talk to the hand..." bits.

I will now roll my eyes again and stroll back to the bar for a refill of my Mocha Latte

 

[Makalakumu]

I will now roll my eyes again and stroll back to the bar for a refill of my Mocha Latte...

...while your civil liberties are stripped away one by one by the people you defend. 911 is the perfect catalyst for Orwellian Doublethink. There have been worse times in this country and yet in those times people were less apt to make excuses for those who attempted to infringe on their freedom. If this REALLY is a WAR then we need to get into a wartime mentality and stop being afraid of the sacrifices involved. We also need to draw a line in the sand to delineate that which we will NOT cross. The loss of of our civil liberties makes everyone less American. What the heck is this "war on terror" really about anyways?

upnorthkyosa

PS - the last statement has many layers of meaning. Peel away that which best fits.

 

[michaeledward]

. . . . security today is a little different. . . .
. . . . in the face of the security concerns we have today.

I don't know if I qualify as one of the 'intellectually rich', but the way I see it, there is no terrorist threat.

In the year 2000, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the 2002, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the year 2003, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Now, in the year 2001, well ... let's see, you had a greater chance of dying of pneumonia, homicide, and automobile accident or suicide than you had of dying of a terrorist attack on US Soil.

So, what exactly do you mean by 'security today is a little different'? Why is 'security today ... a little different'?

Could it be the war in Iraq ... well, not really ... we've pretty much made sure that any terrorists who might thing about coming to the US have an easier target to reach (thereby lowering the possiblity of a threat here in this country).

Mike, you may not like this answer. But it is an answer to the questions posed about security, if I understand them... ibid. Managing Security requires control of the environment.

I am argueing (and others are too, I believe), that it is not for security reasons that the Secret Service has restricted access of protestors to venues where the President or Vice President is going to speak. We are instead argueing that the 'free speech zones' are being presented as a 'security issue' but what is really behind them is 'secrecy' and 'suppression of dissent'.

Let's not forget, that the American Voter is the Presidents Boss. ... wouldn't it be wonderful if, when our boss was in poor temper, we could just lock them in a far away conference room and pretend they didn't exist.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

LITTLE OLD WOMEN IN WHEELCHAIRS (I capitalize in hope that at some point, the ludicrousness will become apparent)

...... and sysiphus chuckled ......

 

[MisterMike]

I don't know if I qualify as one of the 'intellectually rich', but the way I see it, there is no terrorist threat.

In the year 2000, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the 2002, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. In the year 2003, ZERO people died on US Soil by Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Now, in the year 2001, well ... let's see, you had a greater chance of dying of pneumonia, homicide, and automobile accident or suicide than you had of dying of a terrorist attack on US Soil.

So, what exactly do you mean by 'security today is a little different'? Why is 'security today ... a little different'?

Could it be the war in Iraq ... well, not really ... we've pretty much made sure that any terrorists who might thing about coming to the US have an easier target to reach (thereby lowering the possiblity of a threat here in this country).

Mike, you may not like this answer. But it is an answer to the questions posed about security, if I understand them... ibid. Managing Security requires control of the environment.

I am argueing (and others are too, I believe), that it is not for security reasons that the Secret Service has restricted access of protestors to venues where the President or Vice President is going to speak. We are instead argueing that the 'free speech zones' are being presented as a 'security issue' but what is really behind them is 'secrecy' and 'suppression of dissent'.

Let's not forget, that the American Voter is the Presidents Boss. ... wouldn't it be wonderful if, when our boss was in poor temper, we could just lock them in a far away conference room and pretend they didn't exist.

Mike

That's right. In 2001 we were attacked. It was the beginning of a war. Jihad! Jihad! Jihad! Remember??? I think therefor a declaration of war was made against us. Seems pretty clear to me, we live in a DIFFERENT day and age.

Oh, and if a group declares war on us and another country harbors them, it would be my policy to remove that country's leadership as well. Oh, If another country sells them supplies, it would be my policy to remove that country's leadership as well.

Yup, things are different. And I hope we have another 4 years of the current administration in order to begin removing other rogue nations who side with the "Jihadists." How can you justify "a little with us" or "a little with them." Makes perfect sense - you're either with us or against us. The politicizing of this war has made it clear now just who is who.

And why would the President have the Secret Service devise a plan to silence 25 people near Nashua NH? When there are:

~250 million people watching the news
~100 million people on the net
millions more listening to radio
millions reading the NY Times ( and all the other lib bias papers I wouldn't wipe my behind with)

plennnnty of avenues to get their voices out. And the President is concerned with the 25 people on the lawn in NH? Where the TV crews could have just as easily broadcast what was on their signs? Nah, I'm just not buying it.

Oh -and absolutely NOBODY has answered my questions on how close is close enough, and why the zones need to be made closer to the President.

3 feet? - a good yells distance (or spitting distance depending on the person)
surrounding the motorcade car? Perhaps banging on the windows would change his policies
across the street? - if your sign's big enough, the President might discifer the hatefull remarks. At least he could appreciate the colors.

I think there is a little common sense in keeping some of these people a safe distance. I've seen them. They scare me too.

It's obvious you don't like my answers either. But we shouldn't lose sleep over it at night. I know I don't.

 

[michaeledward]

and absolutely NOBODY has answered my questions on how close is close enough, and why the zones need to be made closer to the President.

How about we teach the President a few 'Gift' techniques, and that will be the correct distance to measure protesters from. Protesters should be allowed close enough to the President so that he can run 'Gift in Return', or 'Gift of Destruction', or 'Gift of Destiny'.

Certainly, I would not suggest that the Secret Service are restricted from the area, they could be standing next to the President (assuming they are trained to get out of the way when the President tries to run one of the techniques on Betty - aka 'The Little Old Lady in the Wheelchair').

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nixon had trumpeters. Bush has dissent swept aside. Carter got out of the limo with Roslyn and walked to the inauguration. What can we learn from this?

Aren't some of you the guys who keep nattering about the decline and fall of great nations?

At least we could have a slave (they're bringing that back...at least for the gestarbeiten) whispering, "Remember, Caesar, thou art human," in Hizzoner's ear...

 

[michaeledward]

At least we could have a slave (they're bringing that back...at least for the gestarbeiten) whispering, "Remember, Caesar, thou art human," in Hizzoner's ear...

I like Charlie Pierces' term of endearment for Hizzoner ..... "C-Plus Augustus".

 

[MisterMike]

How about we teach the President a few 'Gift' techniques, and that will be the correct distance to measure protesters from. Protesters should be allowed close enough to the President so that he can run 'Gift in Return', or 'Gift of Destruction', or 'Gift of Destiny'.

Certainly, I would not suggest that the Secret Service are restricted from the area, they could be standing next to the President (assuming they are trained to get out of the way when the President tries to run one of the techniques on Betty - aka 'The Little Old Lady in the Wheelchair').

Mike

Yea that makes sense. I'll reply with - "Probably becuase the attack would be a knife from behind."