Democratic National Convention to have Free Speech Zone

Not cite, cites. Plural. You claim that the Free Speech Zone is a common occurance, a matter of local security. This is an extraordinary claim. News reports have given me the impression that the FSZ is a common occurance, if not universal, at Bush venues. I have seen nothing that would lead me to believe that such was equally common at Kerry venues. I offer you the opportunity to prove your point, and you come up with a grand total of one.

Which leads this idiotic, shit for brains moron to conclude that you cannot.

How about a private book signing? Was it wrong to sequester the protesters?

Diogenes the Cynic, your transparent attempt at doublespeak is embarrassing. Your “private party” bullshit has already been refuted, and even if it weren’t, it’s repugnant. You’re relying on the same defense as male-only clubs to defend discrimination.

And no, Revtim, protests have been increasingly disruptive since the late 1960s. Several instances–1968, the anti-globalization crowd–have already been cited. No one believes they can get their message across with peace, anymore. It’s all about media coverage. I suspect the main reason there isn’t more of an outcry against FSZs is that it centralizes media coverage.

Here’s one:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0210-02.htm

It seems rather naive to think that one side would regularly have protestors and the other would not.

Bullshit, Diogenes. Read the link. The convention is paid for ENTIRELY by taxpayer funds, federal and city.

Cannot what, count? I listed two in my previous posts, Boston and Baltimore. See this is what happens when you allow then to replace your frontal lobe with the “Partisan Knee Jerk™” attachment, you ignore everything except the narrow point you are determined to make, espectally facts that contradict that point. You also convienently ignore two other examples, posted by people other than myself, of apearences by prominent Democrats (Kerry and Clinton) where protestors were sequestered away from the event.

As I said before, there are tons of legitimate resons to dislike Bush, why are you so married to this one which is so patently false? Don’t you feel it damages your side’s cred when you mouth off so much about distorted issues or blatent lies? Remember Chicken Little?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read here for an excruciatingly detailed examination of what the DNC is costing, who’s paying, and who’s affected by this monster, as told by Citizens For Limited Taxation – a group which has its own axes screeching on the grindstone.

There you may learn that the original plan was to have the thing paid for by private (read: mostly corporate) donations plus $15 million of federal funds that are given to both parties’ convention organizers. Ain’t how it’s played out, of course, as costs have mushroomed. But it’s no more correct to say that the whole shindig is being paid for exclusively by taxpayers’ money than it is to say it’s all coming from the Democratic National Committee, or donations, or wherever.

And yes, Boston’s Mayor Menino has been in the thick of getting this thing from the start. See this article on CNN.com.

I’ll give you the benefit of a doubt, Lib, and assume you misunderstood. By no means am I suggesting that one candidate is innocent of protestors. In my opinion, (opinion, mind you…) the Bushiviks are at pains to present that image. My point is that GeeDubya has been using this technique pretty much regularly: keep the dissenters out of camera range, present an image of a wildly popular President be adored by the masses.

Is it a facistic plot to stifle dissent? No, of course not, it is merely a political ploy to present a false image. But it gets entirely out of hand when people can be arrested for no other crime than self-expression, as was the case in W.V.

All that said, I regret that such procedures will probably prove unavoidable, as emotions rise and the battle thickens. Regretable, yes, but still better to have an polarized and inflamed public than one clotted with cynicism and apathy, resigned to helplessness. Of course, with the inevitable ascension to power of the Libertarian Party, all of these problems will fade away…

Your link does not support the notion that the protestors were kept away by any authority. The link states that the protestors were a half-block away and were advised that if they blocked access to the private property of the store they would be removed.

If you have a link showing they were told by police or Secret Service they had to maintain a minimum distance (as opposed to “you can’t block the entrance to this privately-owned store” which I hope even you find reasonable) then please post it. The use of the word “sequestered” in the link without anything supporting the notion that some authority figure initiated the sequestration beyond advising the group not to block the store is disingenuous on the part of the writer.

What he said. I’m just waiting for the conclusions as to who to flame for these FSZs, either the DNC or the BCPD.

The funny thing is, if you ask Liberal about Fahrenheit 9/11, he’ll loudly tell you that he’s refusing to see the movie because he believes Michael Moore uses similar deceptive practices. I trust you can see the irony in that. :wink:

Do you actually read these links all the way through before you post them?

So here we have the local police initiating the clearing of the protestors with nothing to support the notion that Kerry or the Democratic Party had anything to do with it, and the justification for their being moved is, ironically, the Republican-issued terror alert!

Gosh, really, a whole two! Wow! Boy, I’d be hard pressed to come up with two whole examples of Bush using this ploy, huh? You think?

Well, just for starters, Clinton isn’t running for anything. Secondly, you read the cite, they were held “half a block” away, whats that, about 40 yards? You’re comparing apples and orangutans.

I’m not. It just happens to be what this thread is about, I can pretty much shrug it off. Just as you say, we got tons of solid ammo. But it isn’t “patently false”, your shrill insistence notwithstanding.

Sure would, if I did. Didn’t. Don’t have to, got the facts.

Sure. Remember the Alamo?

The MSNBC cite states that the Feds provide $15 million, and the city pays the rest of the costs. If MSNBC is wrong, your beef is with them, not me.

No, my beef is with you, for saying:

I read the MSNBC story. It’s a barebones outline of FAQs about the convention, on the level of: “The DNC for Dummies”. Ambiguously worded, at that, and if you were in the least familiar with the issue, you’d know that there’s more to it. I posted my links about the funding after extensive Googling to clarify exactly what’s the story. I guess that’s too much work for you, though, once you’ve found a cite that fits your preconceptions.

Wouldn’t that be your party platform?

No, that’s the guidebook for recovering Bushistas. The ones who are still salvageable. :stuck_out_tongue:

Not only that, it was also incorrect. The Kent State shootings happened in a grassy field, surrounded by a hill. Not a parking lot.

http://www.library.kent.edu/exhibits/4may95/exhibit/chronology/index.html

http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm
Yes, but no. Read the links.

A Quinn Martin Production.

I seem to recall that it was the Bush people in England who wanted the British protestors kept at a distance and the British officials refused this request. Am I mistaken?

Lib, of course I am against limiting access to protestors. Kerry himself is a former protestor. If he tries or allows such staging tricks as Bush after he becomes President, I would be really surprised.

I have lived under 12 different Presidents. Contrary to what has been said, herding people off to a separate zone is a recent development.