Early Out
So what if he’s obsessed with Bill Clinton!? You’re obsessed with December. Why don’t you let it go, man?
And stop lying about what December said. Both his actual words and your fabrications are a matter of record.
Funny, that’s exactly what I said.
However, for the sake of understanding the problem, there’s value to determining whether it’s a longer-term, systematic problem with the Presidency and/or Secret Service or whether it’s something specific to Bush.
So, then, anybody know if Bush Sr. did the same?
Just to add to the whole hijack-what-swallowed-the-thread, back when Clinton was a candidate, he appeared at a high school in Atlanta about two days before the election. I can testify as fact that anti-Clinton signs were being confiscated, even outside the reasonable boundaries of the event.
OTOH, I also attended a Clinton appearance a couple of years later, with a fair number of friends who were anarchists (this being my radical phase), and despite having anti-gummint signs and handouts, we basically got ignored, despite being inside the event. It was actually pretty disappointing at the time.
Both of these incidents are anecdotal, of course.
I’m so embarrassed. Once again, december has successfully pulled off the trick that stage magicians refer to as “misdirection.” And I fell for it, along with several others. He must be sitting up there in Jersey, laughing his ass off. Credit where credit is due: the guy is really good at it.
Baldwin started a thread about whether or not the Bush administration is systematically violating free speech guarantees. Now, december clearly doesn’t like having anyone say anything disparaging about the people he supports (after all, who does?), so what does he do? Offer some kind of evidence that the administration isn’t doing what Baldwin says? No, he tosses out an offhand remark about Clinton having perhaps done something similar. In short order, no one in the thread is still paying any attention to the alleged misfeasance of the Bush administration, but is, instead, engaged in a pissing contest about what may or may not have happened several years ago.
To be fair, december did say that if the Bush administration is doing what Baldwin has said they’re doing, it’s appalling, and should be stopped. But including the Clinton aside in his remarks is a bit like wrapping a lovely poem around a lit cherry bomb - no one notices the poem.
Well done, december! In the immortal words of the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”
OK, I’m going to try to make my point one more time and we’ll see what happens. I’m not going to try to give a point-by-point response to Libertarian because, quite frankly, I don’t have the energy. Plus, he’s someone who gets his panties bunched up when someone uses the phrase “hypothetical past event”. 'nuff said. If he wants to claim victory because of this, more power to him.
So here’s my point: December has quite a reputation. That doesn’t mean the reputation is justified. It doesn’t mean that I personally think December is a bad person, or a dumb person, or a person whose views are wrong. But that reputation exists.
Given that reputation, there’s a likelihood that statements he makes about Clinton will be dismissed by many members of the SDMB community as “just more December”. Honestly, if that happens, it’s no skin off my back. If December wants to continue to occupy the role he does, hey, that’s his choice. But I find it frustrating, as someone who respects the level of passion that December brings to the SDMB, that so much of it is wasted in apparent “drive by” Clinton bashing that when he does have a valid point to make, it is likely to get lost in the tussle.
I hope I’m not coming off too condescending here, because goodness knows I’m neither a respected senior doper or someone who sets guidelines of any sort.
(One final note: I think it’s a bit sad that we’ve almost forgotten the original topic, namely, how frickin’ outrageous and heinous a violation of first amendment rights the OP describes, in this december/cite hijack.)
Early Out wrote:
I noticed the poem, and I am not no one. But you perceived a cherry bomb when there was nothing but a puff of air.
MaxTheVool wrote:
I would ask for a cite about the likelihood declaration, but then I’d be a jackass.
But if there is such a likelihood, then there might be a likelihood that statements you make about December will be dismissed by many members of the SDMB community as “just more December bashing”. A reputation is as a reputation does.
A reasonable point. Which is why I’ve been going out of my way to be clear that I’m not making statements of the form “December is ____” or “December thinks _____” or “we should think ____ about ____ because December said ____ about it”. I found December’s first post irritating partially due simply to its content, but mainly due to its context given his reputation. And I tried to steer clear from personal attacks entirely.
Hint: a person’s reputation is a part of him.
Holy crap! How did this thread, which started out as a rant about a serious abridgement of Americans’ right to freedom of expression, turn into a thread about december?
Leaving aside the issues in OP, which are obviously of no concern to anyone anyway, I’d like to say that I can’t find any fault with december’s contribution to this thread.
Sure, the man’s views are far from popular around here- I often (okay, usually,) take exception to them myself. That being said, I admire the courage of his convictions and I’m glad that he has the patience (or bullheadedness) required to stick around when he’s treated so poorly by some Dopers. Vigorous debate is good. Automatically attacking someone because they’re on a list of people you hold a grudge against is a pinheaded thing to do, regardless of whether that person is a former head-of-state or a member of message board that you use.
The man made a perfectly valid observation in a perfectly acceptable way-- this sort of thing is not unique to the GWB administration. If you didn’t know that before, you owe december a debt of gratitude. At the very least, if you’ve reflexively attacked the man for no good reason at all, you owe him an apology.
What’s so offensive about pointing out that Clinton wasn’t a saint? Sure, I’d sleep better at night if he, (or a trained monkey) were in the Oval Office instead of the lunatic who is sitting there now, but Clinton had a little evil on him, too, remember? He helped to ram NAFTA through, which, along with a hundred other horrible things, means that my heating bill jumped nearly 250% in 2000, forcing me to switch to electric heat or stop buying food. The Clinton administration is only a cunt-hair less conservative than the Bush administration.
Please excuse my drifting off-topic.
Go ahead, resume your ad hominum ad nauseum.
December, Libertarian, while politically we don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues, allow me to say that I deeply sympathize with y’all, and I look forward to the day when all Dopers conform to the supposed Doper ideal – that people are judged on the strength of their arguments, rather than on the basis of partisan bullshit.
A book written by Patrick Halley, a Clinton advance man, tells how he routinely employed “goon squads” to intimidate protesters and quash anti-Clinton demonstrations. This is according to yesterday’s right-wing Newsmax.com. It should be noted that Halley totally supports Hillary. An Amazon reviewer said of him, “I have never seen anyone else say such positive things about Hillary in such a convincing way.”
The Newsmax article appears to be based on a combination of Halley’s book and statements Halley made during interviews. The article says:
Today’s Newsmax recounted a similar episode during a different parade.
Re: Goon Squads.
Bust them up with legitimate law enforcement officers. Protect the protesters who are exercising their constitutional right to peacably protest. If the protesters get violent, they get busted by law enforcement as well. Carefully select/instruct your law enforcement officers so they don’t try to take the law into their own hands or react in a professional capacity to something that is offensive to them personally. Violence, or the immediate threat of violence, is the only thing they’re there to prevent.
It should be noted, however, that goon squads, however deplorable, are not the type of clear censorship that “free speech zones” are. In the case of goon squads, I blame the law enforcement officers for not supressing the goons just as I would if they failed to supress violent protesters. In the case of “Free Speech Zones” I blame the policymakers for violating the constitutionally protected right to peacably protest in public.
You’re talking apples and oranges here. They produce the same net effect, silencing the protestor, but one is an illegal act which is hidden by the anonymonity of the goon, the other is an illegal act which is being passed off as law. I regret the existance of goon squads, but I feel sure the law is on my side opposing them to support my right of peaceful protest. If I oppose the “Free Speech Zones” then suddenly I’m on the wrong side of the law. Peaceful protest is, by definition in the constitution, not illegal. Any policy which sets up a “Free Speech Zone” is abhorrent, moreso, to me at least, than the use of goons because it pretends to be law.
Enjoy,
Steven
I won’t debate which form of censorship is worse; they’re both wrong.
However, Mtgman, your remedy of using legitimate law enforcement officers looks too idealistic. The squad was working on behalf of the wife of the President – “the most powerful man in the world.” IMHO these incidents show is that as a practical matter, the President has the power to silence dissent by means of “etiquette squads.” How can a mere policeman interfere with the President’s or First Lady’s guards?
I guess I’m an idealist; I would love to see a city police department stand up to the Secret Service, including arresting agents for interfering with the civil rights of citizens. Has anything like that ever happened? It seems like often the local police are only too happy to help.
If the story from Newsmax is accurate, then Hillary Clinton is to blame. Whatever else she is, she isn’t stupid, and there’s no excuse for either not knowing this was going on, or knowing about it and approving. I’d like to see criminal charges come out of this.
But it does seem worse to me that the current administration is violating constitutional rights all over the place, blatantly, and pretending it’s legal.
Let’s look at the scenario from your cite earlier.
Now let’s make a few assumptions. The FR protestor did not try to push, shove, or otherwise use physical force or immediately threaten violence(fighting words) against the goon squad who was marching along with Hillary Clinton. The FR protestor simply stood his ground and held the signs higher so they could be seen above the signs carried by the goons.
To gouge the eyes of the protestor would be unprovoked assault. If a member of this goon squad was, in actuality, a member of the Secret Service and represented themselves as such, then press for assault charges before they could blink. If they were SS agents disguised as normal people then I would have defended action on the part of the protestor to defend themselves through the use of their own force.
The point here is that even if the person trying to supress my right to protest IS a member of the VIP’s group, they have no force of law behind their actions and, if they’re supposed to be an agent of law, then they must keep their identity secred. If I were protesting along the route of Hillary Clinton, then I am perfectly justified, and in the right, both legally and morally in defending myself. I was doing no wrong by legal standards. The goons who were trying to silence me have to silence me and any law enforcement officer who happens to be nearby and does their duty. I’ve got the law on my side here.
Now the policies laid down to establish “free speech zones” put the law on the side of the goon. More than that, they turn the law enforcement officer, who was previously on my side, into the goon.
I assert that perverting the law in a manner which is clearly a violation of the constitution is a larger offense than the, also reprehensible, employment of goon squads.
Enjoy,
Steven
Just like to add some more clarification to my last statement.
I assert that perverting the law in a manner which is clearly a violation of the constitution is a larger offense than the, also reprehensible, employment of goon squads. The primary difference is that by perverting the law, you have taken recourse away from the citizen. If I am illegally supressed by a goon squad, I can seek help from law enforcement. If I am illegally supressed by the law, I have only civil disobedience to fall back upon. While this may be the right thing to do it is simply wrong to force citizens into this position when the “supreme law of the land” is so clear on the issue.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’ve seen Bush speak, when he was a candidate. The event took place in an airport hanger, after he landed. There were protestors, anti-Bush people, outside the hanger that were not allowed in. I am glad they weren’t let in. Myself and many, many others waited in lines, passed through security, and fought our way closer to the front so that we could see and hear Bush. The protestors outside were chanting and making a ruckus. Isn’t it fair to those of us who went to hear Bush speak that we were allowed to do so without interference from his opposition? If they wanted to hear him, they could have put down the signs and gone in with the rest of us. They’d rather chant inane slogans, so stay out where you aren’t ruining my chance to hear and see a presidential candidate. Seems fair to me.
Demonstrators should restrict themselves to places where they won’t interfere with everyone else. To do anything else is disrespectful to the person who is making the public appearance (especially in a place such as I live, where important government officials almost never visit, being rudely harassed isn’t likely to inspire a return trip someday) and also disrespectful to the people who came to enjoy the speech and see the speaker.
I’ve seen Bush speak, when he was a candidate. The event took place in an airport hanger, after he landed. There were protestors, anti-Bush people, outside the hanger that were not allowed in. I am glad they weren’t let in. Myself and many, many others waited in lines, passed through security, and fought our way closer to the front so that we could see and hear Bush. The protestors outside were chanting and making a ruckus. Isn’t it fair to those of us who went to hear Bush speak that we were allowed to do so without interference from his opposition? If they wanted to hear him, they could have put down the signs and gone in with the rest of us. They’d rather chant inane slogans, so stay out where you aren’t ruining my chance to hear and see a presidential candidate. Seems fair to me.
Demonstrators should restrict themselves to places where they won’t interfere with everyone else. To do anything else is disrespectful to the person who is making the public appearance (especially in a place such as I live, where important government officials almost never visit, being rudely harassed isn’t likely to inspire a return trip someday) and also disrespectful to the people who came to enjoy the speech and see the speaker.
I hate to break the news to you, Mtgman, but your defence (or mine) of protestors’ use of force against the First Lady’s guards wouldn’t mean shit. If the President of the United States chooses this sort of governance, it would take some very powerful, very determined institutions to do anything about it.
Conceivably a unified media might do some good if they got good video and had the courage to broadcast it. But, ordinary people simply don’t have the clout to make a difference.
I consider Ammendment 1 of the Constitution to be an adequate defense against this type of censorship. Remember my assumptions in the scenario. We’re not talking about someone who picked a fight with the officer. If the President of the United States chooses this type of governance then he should be impeached. You CAN fight city hall. Giving up without even trying, citing that maxim is detestable.
For a quick primer on the rights of demonstrators, you can look here(this is a pdf file). Granted that we only have one side of the story in the case of the FreeRepublic agent, but if it’s truthful, the goon should have been charged with assault, I don’t give a fuck who he worked for. If he was a SS agent in plainclothes, he should be prosecuted for obeying an illegal order and whoever gave him that order should be prosecuted as well.
Too bad the President isn’t coming to my town with such rules governing his visit. I’m not normally one for demonstrations or protests, but I’d find something to put on a Anti-Bush sign just to challenge the notion that you can restrict our First Ammendment rights to “Free Speech Zones”.
Enjoy,
Steven
I’m looking through this thread for links to legitimate news sources that show these barrierss and arrests to be an actual occurance. I haven’t found too many. The OP had a link but the amount of Bush bashing that took place before Free Speech Zones were even mentioned leads me to believe it wasn’t an entirely unbiased source.
I’d like to show this information to my professor tomorrow. Where can I find out more?