On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:52:09 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:31:43 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:

On 18/03/2011 2:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John
wrote:

Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on
her because there was little to remind her it was going on.

That made me wonder...why don't we see the pictures of the dead, their caskets,
etc, like we did when Bush was president.

We used to see their pictures on NBC and other newscasts, and even in the big
papers. Now we see nothing of the sort.

Anyone?

Are you stupid or just lying? Bush was the one who banned photography
of the caskets. Obama rescinded that.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20090226/index.htm

emdeplume, kick you butt off your shoulders, you will see the real
situation a lot better.

I believe the policy banning of the casket photography was in effect during the
Clinton administration. Bush simply enforced it.

In any case, so what? Why is this liberal president not showing all the caskets?

You believe wrong. It started with Bush I, and Clinton had little use
for it. Bush/Cheney enforced it with vigor. Obama said it was up to
the families, which seems about right.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:28:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:26:26 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:52:09 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:31:43 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:

On 18/03/2011 2:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John
wrote:

Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on
her because there was little to remind her it was going on.

That made me wonder...why don't we see the pictures of the dead, their caskets,
etc, like we did when Bush was president.

We used to see their pictures on NBC and other newscasts, and even in the big
papers. Now we see nothing of the sort.

Anyone?

Are you stupid or just lying? Bush was the one who banned photography
of the caskets. Obama rescinded that.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20090226/index.htm

emdeplume, kick you butt off your shoulders, you will see the real
situation a lot better.

I believe the policy banning of the casket photography was in effect during the
Clinton administration. Bush simply enforced it.

In any case, so what? Why is this liberal president not showing all the caskets?

You believe wrong. It started with Bush I, and Clinton had little use
for it. Bush/Cheney enforced it with vigor. Obama said it was up to
the families, which seems about right.

To put this in perspective, the US has traditionally banned showing
dead GIs. That was abandoned toward the end of Vietnam and reinstated
when we started having dead GIs coming home from Kuwait.
Personally, as long as it is respectful, I have no problem reminding
people of the cost of freedom.

That's not much of a perspective, since "showing dead GIs" isn't
what's being shown. As I said, Bush I banned the showing of the
arriving coffins.


Those whackos who are protesting at the GI funerals should be
"escorted" out by "Rolling Thunder". Bikers have really become pussies
these days it seems.

As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 10:58:36 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:28:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:26:26 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 16:52:09 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:31:43 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:

On 18/03/2011 2:10 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:48:24 -0400, John
wrote:

Last night I heard Oprah saying the war in Afghanistan had very little impact on
her because there was little to remind her it was going on.

That made me wonder...why don't we see the pictures of the dead, their caskets,
etc, like we did when Bush was president.

We used to see their pictures on NBC and other newscasts, and even in the big
papers. Now we see nothing of the sort.

Anyone?

Are you stupid or just lying? Bush was the one who banned photography
of the caskets. Obama rescinded that.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20090226/index.htm

emdeplume, kick you butt off your shoulders, you will see the real
situation a lot better.

I believe the policy banning of the casket photography was in effect during the
Clinton administration. Bush simply enforced it.

In any case, so what? Why is this liberal president not showing all the caskets?

You believe wrong. It started with Bush I, and Clinton had little use
for it. Bush/Cheney enforced it with vigor. Obama said it was up to
the families, which seems about right.

To put this in perspective, the US has traditionally banned showing
dead GIs. That was abandoned toward the end of Vietnam and reinstated
when we started having dead GIs coming home from Kuwait.
Personally, as long as it is respectful, I have no problem reminding
people of the cost of freedom.

That's not much of a perspective, since "showing dead GIs" isn't
what's being shown. As I said, Bush I banned the showing of the
arriving coffins.

As had every president since Washington ... until Vietnam.
It is very hard to even find archival footage of arriving coffins from
any other war and they certainly were not in the newspaper or on TV.

Those whackos who are protesting at the GI funerals should be
"escorted" out by "Rolling Thunder". Bikers have really become pussies
these days it seems.

As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.


At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".



The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:


As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.


At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".



The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.


As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.

They don't have such a right. That's a threat.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:16:28 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:


As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.


At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".



The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.


As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.

They don't have such a right. That's a threat.


Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

LOL Well, some are some aren't I guess.

wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:26:23 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:16:28 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.

At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".


The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.

As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.
They don't have such a right. That's a threat.

Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.
LOL Well, some are some aren't I guess.

Less the "Wild One" and more like the "Wild Hogs".

I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is
determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault.


Connecticut and Georgia?

Snotty Ingersoll* at several points threatened to show up here and teach
me a lesson, and so did the Loogy moron.

* It is embarrassing to me that Ingersoll lives in the state of my
birth. I no longer can claim that Connecticut Yankees are smarter than
the average bear since, with Ingersoll posting here, that obviously is
not true.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:31:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:26:23 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:50:32 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:16:28 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:


As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.


At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater".



The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.


As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.

They don't have such a right. That's a threat.


Duh ... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

LOL Well, some are some aren't I guess.

Less the "Wild One" and more like the "Wild Hogs".

I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is
determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault.

It depends a lot on the presiding authority. Different places define
them differently. Basically, it's when they're used to incite violence
or express hatred by the person to whom they're directed, but that's
very broad.

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:06:51 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:13:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:31:53 -0400, wrote:



I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is
determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault.

It depends a lot on the presiding authority. Different places define
them differently. Basically, it's when they're used to incite violence
or express hatred by the person to whom they're directed, but that's
very broad.


I think standing next to a funeral telling some family that their son
died because god killed him for supporting fags is "inciting
violence".

I agree, but the Supreme's disagreed. It was one of the few times that
I actually agreed with Alito.

They decided that it was a public statement vs. one to specific
person.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:13:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 15:31:53 -0400, wrote:



I do wonder how this plays in a "fighting words" state where it is
determined that some speech is egregious enough to justify assault.

It depends a lot on the presiding authority. Different places define
them differently. Basically, it's when they're used to incite violence
or express hatred by the person to whom they're directed, but that's
very broad.


I think standing next to a funeral telling some family that their son
died because god killed him for supporting fags is "inciting
violence".

A few thugs in masks should pop out of a crowd and give a few of them
hideous beat downs and disappear back into the crowd.. A couple
incidents like that and the cowards would go find something else to do
to try to impress each other... That is when they got out of the
hospital.

On Mar 20, 9:50*am, wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 23:16:28 -0700, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 01:42:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:50 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:25:41 -0400, wrote:

As distasteful as it is, those wackos apparently have the right to
protest.

At a certain point the reach the level of "fire in a crowded theater"..

The Supreme Court spoke on this subject. They have the right to do it.

As I said, bikers have become sissies. I would expect Rolling Thunder
to explain they also have the right to get their ass kicked if they
don't take their protest down the road.

They don't have such a right. That's a threat.

Duh *... BIKERS. They are supposed to be a little threatening.

Greg, I'd think it would be interesting if a West-burrow member tried
to break their line, though.