On Dec 14, 10:05Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 14, 12:19�pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:08:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:30�pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Dec 13, 12:53?pm, wrote:
�The democrats are ALL afraid to address real
issues so they only play to friendly, fixed, forums... I do not want a
president that dismisses me.
Time out.
google up: George Bush Free Speech Zone
or: George Bush Protest Zone
think about what you see there, in relationship to what you just
posted above.
No further comment from me, you and Harry carry on. :-)
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
Chuck, are you implying Hillary's crowd doesn't do the same thing?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not in the least. I was responding to JAFM's remark that he wanted a
president that didn't simply "dismiss" people who disagreed with him
or her. Since the current president orders his critics removed to
"free speech zones" and according the the American Conservative
magazine
even allows the local police to arrest them, I guess JAFM and I are on
the same page- neither of us want a president that stifles reasonable
dissent or simply ignores and dismisses opposing viewpoints. We might
even agree that in America the "Free Speech Zone" is everywhere the
Constitution is in effect.
"Hillary's crowd" can't really do the same thing. Â*Take the case of
the guy in the American Conservative magazine article that was holding
an anti-Bush picket sign. The police told him to move to a particular
area, and after he had been there a minute or two the cops told him he
"wasn't in the free speech zone" (no kidding!) and he would have to
move. According to the magazine article, no matter where one cop told
him he could stand and hold his sign, another cop would come along and
tell him he wasn't in the "free speech zone" and he would have to move
again. Finally, he was arrested for "violating the security zone
surrounding the president"--but by all accounts he was about 200 yards
away. (lots of people were much closer to the president, but they were
expressing "acceptable" thoughts) The poor guy was denied a jury trial
because some judge down south said it was a "minor charge".......a
minor charge that could put the poor guy in prison for several years
if the judge decides he's guilty.
There's no "security zone" that extends for hundreds of yards around
candidates for POTUS, so no- Hillary couldn't do exactly the same
thing.
One good thing, maybe, about next year's election; so far there isn't
an absolutely outstanding candidate on either side. Maybe that will
help depolarize the country......no matter who we pick from the
current crop we're in tough shape. (Some of the R's look better to me
than some of the D's). Â*The people will have to pull together to solve
common problems, rather than idolize some extremist demagogue on the
left or the right......(I hope).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You have a lot of words, I am simple. But there is a difference. Bush
and others like John Kerry don't want to deal with sock puppets during
schedualed speeches and events. Hillary and the rest of the dem
candidates won't deal with anything but scripted questions and staged
news conferences (debates) even when it is supposed to be an open
honest representative forum. There is a big difference, Chuck knows
that... But he is a clever pundit...