Your pitting people who you don’t even mention by name, or provide any information about? Do us readers have to do all your work for you?
Shayna, here’s the point: .
And see you? You’re waaaaay the hell over there somewhere, missing it.
My post does not suggest that anyone should have posted this story sooner, or at all. I would HOPE that no one sees this story and truly believes it worthy of outrage. My point was that similar stories during the Bush years were greeted with outrage by a few knee-jerk posters here. Now, it’s true that if those posters were also to greet this story with outrage, they would successfully defend themselves from charges of hypocrisy. But that’s not my claim here. By contrasting the reaction readers feel to this story with the reactions this same knee-jerk posters had to similar events during the previous administration, I hope illustrate how silly such previous reactions were.
So it’s completely irrelevant whether or not anyone had a chance to see this story now… unless someone wishes to argue that this story DOES represent a legitimate call to outrage.
What difference does it make? My point has nothing to do with lefty hypocrisy; it’s the extreme silliness I’m attacking. Although it IS interesting that this is the charge you immediately sought to defend yourself against. “The wicked flee where no man pursueth.”
Seriously? The cop makes a mistake, shortly thereafter the guy gets a call telling him it was a mistake and he can have his sign back, and this is “excessively intrusive?”
Wow.
OK, I might have been wrong in my initial assumption.
Look, the Secret Service asked for permission. It’s perfectly reasonable to investigate; they were called. Once there, they ask if they can look around. The guy didn’t have to let them.
What’s the problem??
OK. Clearly I was off-base.
Your consistency is admirable, but you were wrong then and are wrong now. Yes, they pulled him over, and no, it wasn’t for a message they disagreed with… it was because they misinterpreted the sign as a threat. A brief review revealed their error, and they returned the sign with an implicit admission of error. Why can’t the cops make a mistake without it becoming a fascist state?
Did I misunderstand this part, then? Sorta seems to imply lefty Bush bashers. You meant vegetarians? Unitarians? Clarify, then. Precisely who are these people who should be feeling “a little abashed” right now, so that we might heap scorn and mockery upon them?
This is the first I heard about it, and I’ll say that the local police department was absolutely in the wrong. This is political dissent and it is protected speech. Why this is the fault of liberals on this board I can’t figure.
I do note that Obama has ended the Secret Service practice of removing dissenters from rallies and rooms that the President is in. Under Bush the Secret Service would not allow dissenters to even stand within 100 yards of the President in a public place, regardless of whether they were protesting or just standing quietly. I know because I once tried to watch him exit a limousine and neither I nor anyone else with me, all non-sign carrying Democrats, could not get close enough to see him on public school grounds while Bush supporters who arrived later were allowed to enter. This was the Secret Service that was doing the screening.
So we (the royal we) were pissed off when the Secret Service confiscated political signs when George W. Bush was president, and now you want to know why we’re not pissed that the Secret Service has confiscated political signs now that Barack Obama is president … except that we are pissed off that the Secret Service is confiscating politcal signs now that Barack Obama is president.
Oops. I bet you feel a little abashed 'round about now.
If I genuinely believed that refusing the Secret Service permission to search his house wouldn’t automatically have made this poor soul an enemy of the state, there would be no problem.
However, refusing the Secret Service entry is not quite the same as refusing a local cop entry.
Listen, a large majority of the Board was lefty Bush bashers. But most of them bashed Bush for things that were bashable.
Don’t infer from that line my agreement with the bashing. But certainly it’s reasonable to bash Bush for, say, Iraq.
I’m talking about the much smaller crowd – Reeder, to choose one example – who bashed Bush for crap like this story.
Although in light of the responses above, I am going to rethink my position; it seems there are more than a few people who believe this kind of thing is worthy of outrage. I don’t get it; it seems obvious to me that this was a simple mistake, recitified as soon as possible…
Yes, it is – and the cops figured that out quickly and that was the end of it.
Who, if I recall correct, was banned for bullshit like that.
And the reason I feel that it’s disturbing is that anymore, it seems that the slightest bit of disent is seen as a threat. “Abort” in this case would be akin to “Abort! Abort mission!” So why is it seen as a threat?
Everything’s a “threat” nowadays. Why is that?
Is this another one of your “gotcha!” threads?
Except now he may or may not be on a Secret Service watch list.
The cops certainly did not figure it out quickly.
“Quickly” would be something along the lines of, “You’re calling in… what? A fucking bumper sticker? Get back on the road, Patrolman Smith!”
What we had here was the cops figuring something out quite slowly and deliberately.
Dear God, Bricker. The officer thought the man was threatening the president. He was required by law to act, wasn’t he?
Did the Secret Service ask you if you were dissenters and then not allow you within 100 yards of the President?
If not then the policy was probably no one is allowed within 100 yards of the Pres. unless they are pre-screened which is probably what those people who arrived later were.
Being excessively intrusive was the cop’s mistake. If you don’t agree with me that the cop was overstepping his proper role here, then why are you saying that the cop made a mistake?
You still haven’t produced jack-shit in the way of documentation of any specific “similar story” or “similar event” which generated the allegedly unjustified “outrage” to which you refer.
Put up or shut up, lazy-ass.
First, i agree with this. While it might not be the end of the world for this guy, the fact is that his rights were violated, and it needs to be made very clear to the cop in question that this sort of shit is unacceptable.
As for me, the sort of shit that got me really pissed off during the Bush administration was shit like:
It is now illegal to wear an anti-Bush shirt in West Virginia
In this story, a couple was arrested and ejected from a Bush speech for wearing anti-Bush shirts. At the same rally, people everywhere were wearing pro-Bush shirts and buttons.
Man tells Cheney “Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.” SS arrests him.
In this story, the Vice-President was actually walking through a crowd shaking hands. A guy came up, no closer than the other people in the crowd, and told Cheney his policies in Iraq were reprehensible. Then he walked away and went about his business. The Secret Service followed, and arrested him 10 minutes later.
So, Bricker, i know you’re a smart guy. Perhaps you can tell me which of these three incidents, in terms of justifiably criticizing the Administration, is the odd one out?
[ol]
[li]Couple arrested at a Presidential rally by local police under the supervision of the Secret Service.[/li][li]Man arrested by Secret Service for talking to the Vice-President.[/li][*]Man pulled over in Oklahoma by local law enforcement, who then notifies the Secret Service, who interview the man at his home and then leave.[/ol]
No, he wasn’t. He had no reasonable belief that the driver had threatened the President. He did have a badge, gun, and the full power of the State behind him as he suppressed political speech with which he apparently does not agree.
Edit to add: I agree this has nothing to do with Obama or his administration. This is a local cop that screwed up.