Of course, this piece of idiotcy also ignores the fact that one of the protesters lost her job over the incident. I’d chalk it up as coincidence, except that she happens to be a federal worker…
And again, horseshit. A campaign stop is not a function of the United States government. Find me anything anywhere in the law that defines a campaign stump speech as a function of the United States government. If you really think that a speech at a July 4th picnic is a government function then you’re crazy. If you think that the government can just declare anything it wants to be a government function then you’re stupid. If you think the government should be able to declare anything it wants a government function then you’re fucked in the head.
Oh, i have no doubt that this is correct.
I’m sure that law enforcement does, with alarming frequency, overstep the bounds of reasonable behavior simply to arrest people they don’t like for the sake of making their lives difficult. It happens at protests, at political conventions, at speeches. Then, when the event is over, then people are often released without charges. All it shows is an unbecoming tendency of law enforcement officers to act like complete tools.
And you have yet to demonstrate which law these people were defying by wearing their anti-Bush t-shirts.
Ah, i see where you’re coming from now. You assume, because we’re criticizing the Republicans, that an appropriate response is to show that a Democratic president did the same thing.
This might be appropriate in your narrow political world, where party loyalty is more important than principle, but it might suprise you to know that some of us think the principle of free speech is more important than the teedledum or tweedledee of American politics.
If Clinton had that couple arrested for simply insulting him, then it’s just as bad as what Bush is doing. I know this might be hard for you to grasp, but criticism of Bush does not necessarily mean praise for the Democratic party, at least among people who think with their heads rather than jerk with their knees.
Like I said, it is DISCRETIONARY. If they called it a Gov’t event, and they paid for it out of the proper line item accounts, then it was a Government function period.
The law allows for DISCRETION on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury. I don’t think a campaign stump speech SHOULD be a gov’t event, but it is, because they say it is. It’s all about semantics and smoke and mirrors. How can we twist the law to work for us? It’s simple see-spot-run politics.
Acting like a tool, one years salary. Acting within your lawful authority, priceless.
I never SAID they were violating the law by wearing t-shirts, boob. I said they violated the law by refusing to leave when directed to do so by a person with the authority to do so. If a cop on the street in your town tries to pull you over, and you don’t stop, you’ll be arrested, if your car hood says “Lick Bush” 04 on it, you can SAY it was because of your political view, but in reality, your failure to stop forces your arrest and detainment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttonjockey308
This shit just happens. It happened to a couple of chuckleheads at the Taste of Chicago back in 96. I suppose we’ve all but forgotten about the Mendoza’s
No, I assume nothing. I was merely pointing out the injustice in the system, and that both parties seemingly engage in the vehement evisceration of free speech. I’m no real fan of Bush, nor was I of Gores’ or Clintons’ for that matter, but the people in both examples were not arrested, detained, ticketed etc. for their political views, they were arrested, detained, ticketed, etc, for breaking the bloody law! That fact may stink like the stifling of free speech, but in reality, it’s the way things are, and have been, and if we don’t like it, it’s up to us to make the changes necessary to free ourselves from the ties that bind.
It’s not a giant conspiracy, it’s a giant idiosyncracy. Like I said in a previous post, there are so many laws and rules and regs that Law Enforcement doesn’t have time or resources to enforce, that if we the people were forced to live to the letter of the law, a better portion of us would be criminals by our 16th birthday. The Devil, and in this case, the SS, is in the details.
And you apparently have not a single problem with the police asking someone to leave who:
a) has a ticket specifically allowing them to be in the enclosed area
b) wears a t-shirt
This says quite a bit about the type of “discretion” you believe is acceptable in law enforcement.
Sure, they broke the law by not moving on when asked to do so. But if law enforcement actually bothered to use its brains instead of its knees for thinking, they would have realized that asking the couple to leave in the first place was beyond the ralm of reasonable security concerns.
And yet, in all of this, they still manage to find the time and energy to evict someone for wearing a t-shirt. Again, says a lot about priorities and"discretion."
The area was declared a disaster area on June 8, retroactive to May 27 (a Presidential determination of a major disaster is the trigger which allows FEMA to call up Disaster Temporary Employees, or “reservists,” which is what Ms. Rank apparently was). Something called the “incident period” for the disaster closed on June 28. And one would think that a full month after the disasters a need for temporary employees working on environmental stuff as Ms. Rank said she was would decrease markedly, as duties returned to state and federal full-time employees.
It is my contention that Ms. Rank was sent home in normal course. It is further my contention that any reporter bothered to ask FEMA the questions the right way (“I know you’re not allowed to answer questions about a specific employee, and that makes sense. How many reservists were called up for the West Virginia disaster declaration and how many remain? What generally governs who is called and when they’re sent home? These environmental guys – what do they do? Is it just checking rivers and stuff or are they sniffing around homes for black mold? Do any environmental DTEs involved with [fill in Ms. Rank’s job description, solicited from her in an earlier call] remain in the area?”) it would be clear that it was normal course.
And, as a bonus, some ignorance about DTEs might be eradicated, which would be a good thing all around, as I had no idea this corps of people exists.
You’re a sad. sad, little monkey.
And for the third time, I call horse shit. It’s a CAMPAIGN APPEARANCE. The government doesn’t (or isn’t supposed to) pay for CAMPAIGN APPEARANCES, especially when the candidate has refused federal matching funds. CAMPAIGN APPEARANCES are not a function of government, no matter how many TIMES you put “DISCRETIONARY” in BIG LETTERS.
But I’ll tell you what, you find me the memo or whatever from the Treasury secretary that supports your view and post a link to it.
Otto, my man, that ‘memo’ you’re looking for, was linked for your perusal a few posts up, but, so’s ya don’t have to injure your mousin’ finger, here’s the Title 18 link. Again.
If you don’t want to click, I’ll post a bit for you…
If you’ll notice, it just says ‘visiting’ it doesn’t specify Campaign Stops.
No I don’t, because those officers are simply following their directives. If their directives were to burn innocent civilians alive, I’d have an issue, but removing someone because it appeared they intended subvert the rules of engagement, as it were, meh.
IME, the law is at once black and white, and gray. The grayness in the law comes from it’s enforcement, as a member of the LE community, and a person who’s actually done this specific kind of work, I’d rather err on the side of caution for my protectee, than make sure a couple of people get to wear t-shirts on TV.
Still, the fact remains I don’t necessarily believe they should have been removed, however the fact that they were isn’t quite the slippery slope everyone thinks it is, it’s merely business as usual.
I read it, asshole. I even copied and pasted part of it. But, as in every other aspect of your involvement with this topic, I see you didn’t let reality get in the way of your spouting utter shit like a fucking tool.
And if you’ll notice, dumbass, it says
(emphasis added for dumbasses who think that all relevant parts of a statute aren’t somehow relevant even after the dumbass copies and pastes it)
Campaign stops are not “Government business.” Campaign stops are not “official functions.” For all your stupid fucking bleating to the contrary, you’re simply flat-out wrong when you say this statute applies.
Let me say it again, because you’re obviously deficient: Campaign stops are not “Government business.” Campaign stops are not "official functions."
Dumbass.
Otto, I don’t think you quite understand. Friend Button is a member of the LE community (Lesbian existentialist? Leggo enthusiasts?) and, as such, is concerned with the safety of his protectee. Did you not grasp that these desperate persons were armed with provocative T-shirts! With political slogans dangerously emblazoned thereon?! Think, man, think! What might have happened if the placid and bovine rapture of the attendees were to be shattered by a liberal political slogan! It might lead to mass panic, group hysteria, The Leader might very well have been trampled!
Did it escape your notice that the T-shirts in question were covertly smuggled into the gathering? To what end, I ask you? Who knows what malicious plans lurk in the dark recesses of the liberal mind? What horrors might be wrought with a T-shirt soaked with nerve agent, or nuclear anthrax!
Thank Heaven vigilant eyes were on hand, that the dastardly plot went no further!
No it’s not. It is business as it has been conducted recently.
I’ve listened to many campaign speeches interrupted by booing dissenters and hecklers. And I’ve seen lots of people carrying lots of signs that disagree with lots of issues supported by lots of candidates.
Why can’t Bush supporters be trusted not to attack the few who peacefully and quietly disagree? (We have no evidence that these two were going to do otherwise. It seems obvious to me that they covered their T-shirts so that they could enter the public park to make their dissent known. Horrors!)
If someone reacted to their quiet dissent with improper behavior, then that person is the one who should be asked to leave.
I have no respect for anyone who cannot face dissenting opinions. In a public servant it is outrangeous and intolerable. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson or Teddy Roosevelt or Harry Truman being afraid of criticism? “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” as I think one of them put it.
Ever ask yourself why Bush wants only supporters present? Shouldn’t he want to reach those who disagree with him to persuade them to his way of thinking? Or is it all about show and staging? Why?
"“Help! Help! Save me from the couple in the t-shirts! Make the bad people go away. My guns beat your t-shirts! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!”
I think the President needs to reread the Cowboy Code of Honor and the Texas Ranger “Deputy” Pledge.
[let me finish for you…] But alas, you have no interest in making the world any better. Explain to me exactly how that is a good thing.
If one assumes for the sake of the argument that what the police told them to do was a breach of the first, and if Bush backed the police in that, then that would be an indictment of his stand on the topic, right? So your comment just begs the question.
More substance and less circularity would be good.
But let’s face it, the real bottom line for you is this, isn’t it? -
and
My emphasis.
You just don’t like anti-Bush people, do you? They are boobs and assholes, so you don’t really care, right? Free speech principles don’t actually come into it for you, do they?
By the way, you can’t count, dipshit.
Yeah, I suppose if you count the last 10 years as recently, then sure.
Ok pal, look. Just because you say that Campaign Stops aren’t official functions of Government, does not mean that the rules under which the Secret Service operates change. The President is the President 7 x 24, and like it or not, they HAVE THE FUCKING AUTHORITY TO ASK SOMEONE TO LEAVE. YOU FUCKSTICK. You don’t like it, I don’t like it, it’s just the way it is.
There are groups of people in this society you are compelled to listen to, the Secret Service is one of those groups, especially if the president’s about.
I don’t give a flying blue fuck if he’s stumping for re-election, taking a bike ride, or picking goddamn strawberries, same rules apply. Period.
You’re wrong Princhester, I don’t like people in general, pro-bush, anti-bush, I could care less. En masse, people are boobs and assholes. As far as free speech, we’re in the thick of it right bloody here. THIS is free speech, THAT was trespassing.
We elect Presidents, not kings. Exceptional rules of protection apply, this is clear to anyone. But protection from contrary views is not one of these, nor should it be. You are free to disagree with the president, you are also free to publicly scorn the president. It is true that GeeDubya appears to be exceptionally sensitive as regards his dignity, but that’s his problem, not ours.
Unless you can demonstrate some reason to believe that the t-shirts in question presented some sort of actual threat, your strident insistence that presidential protection always applys, while accurate, is quite perfectly irrelevent.
If it were trespassing, the charge of trespassing would have actually been prosecuted, wouldn’t they?
They had tickets, just like everyone else.
If they were prosecuted, the court would have had to rule on whether or not objections to a message on a T-shirt were sufficient cause to ask them to leave, right? How strong of a case for trespassing was it, in your opinion?
Oh, so now you’re changing your little fantasy, shitstain? Before it was “they have the authority to do this under this linked statute.” Then, after it’s pointed out to you a half-dozen times that the plain language of the statute doesn’t support you you change your line to “the Secret Service Must Be Obeyed.”
You’re a liar who doesn’t have the stones to fess up when your lies are exposed. You’re worse than a four year old. At least they have the decency to pretend to be ashamed when their obvious lies get exposed.
There was no threat here. There was nothing which legitimated arresting two people who dissented from the viewpoint of the regime.
And you wonder why “members of the LE community” have reputations for being jack-booted thugs. It’s because of toadying creeps like you.
I dunno, King George VIII has a nice ring to it, followed by King Jebediah and later Queen Barbara. Works for me. 
Bush the Lesser’s is not named “Jebediah”. You have him mixed up with J. Springfield, founder of the city that bears his name.
Hereditary monarchy has other drawbacks as well. We would be forced to refer to Jenna as the Infanta, and seek royal bloodlines to breed her with. Such marriages often require certain, ah, shall we say, physical characteristics of verifiable intactness, attesting to a state of innocence largely unknown amongst UTex co-eds, save for those too ugly even for an blind Aggie. Happily, she *is *possessed of enormous…tracts of land.
Regretably, the only unmarried royal of sufficient pedigree would be Prince Charles of England, and there is only so much that stern duty can demand. “Close your eyes and think of Midland” simply won’t cut it.
I was wrong, of course, about the King Jebediah thing. King John is OK, I guess, but I liked the biblical nature of Jebediah, this being the end times and all. 
Prince Charles? I don’t think so. Prince William, on the other hand, is quite the looker, and could fulfill the role admirably, I’m sure.
The United Kingdom of the United States, Great Britain, and Northern Ireland?
I think actually what we are debating is whether one is or should be compelled to listen to those people.
You, however, seem to have the usual LE attitude, namely that since the job of LE people is to uphold the law, whatever they do must be the law.
The possibility that perhaps what they are doing is outside the law and a betrayal of what they are supposed to be doing is a possibility many LE people cannot or will not grasp.
So you pretty much accept that you’re a fuckwit then, I take it?
Was it? How do you know? The authorities involved dropped the charges, which kinda suggests THAT wasn’t trespassing.
An alternative theory is that the LE people involved overstepped their authority in order to achieve unlawful objectives, knowing that they could always step back after that objective had been achieved. Fits the facts.