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. 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). 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).

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...

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:33:40 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Dec 14, 10:05*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. *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). *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...

He's a lot better with words than I am! Well...quantity anyway. And quality
too. Not as fair and balanced though.
--
John H

John H. wrote:
Not as fair and balanced though.

It really doesn't exist among any of us. Even when we want to try to be
"fair and balanced", and try to understand and fairly present the
opposing viewpoint, we still will highlight our own viewpoint to help
someone understand the correct choice.

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:59:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
Not as fair and balanced though.

It really doesn't exist among any of us. Even when we want to try to be
"fair and balanced", and try to understand and fairly present the
opposing viewpoint, we still will highlight our own viewpoint to help
someone understand the correct choice.

That's far too metaphysical for 7:00 AM.

I'll go along with your comments since they imply that propounding my
viewpoint, although perhaps not completely fair and balanced, *will* lead
someone to the correct choice.

And, good morning to you, sir. I've been playing with my camera. I haven't
figured out how to view a NEF (RAW) file with Irfanview, although Adobe
seems to handle it. I may go see if there are any free updates to
IrfanView.
--
John H

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:59:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
Not as fair and balanced though.

It really doesn't exist among any of us. Even when we want to try to be
"fair and balanced", and try to understand and fairly present the
opposing viewpoint, we still will highlight our own viewpoint to help
someone understand the correct choice.

That's far too metaphysical for 7:00 AM.

I'll go along with your comments since they imply that propounding my
viewpoint, although perhaps not completely fair and balanced, *will* lead
someone to the correct choice.

And, good morning to you, sir. I've been playing with my camera. I haven't
figured out how to view a NEF (RAW) file with Irfanview, although Adobe
seems to handle it. I may go see if there are any free updates to
IrfanView.

If there is not a RAW add in for InfanView, Picasso does view RAW and is
also free. You can also download a NEF Viewer from Microsoft so you
will be able to view them in "My Pictures".

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:30:34 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 06:59:40 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
Not as fair and balanced though.

It really doesn't exist among any of us. Even when we want to try to be
"fair and balanced", and try to understand and fairly present the
opposing viewpoint, we still will highlight our own viewpoint to help
someone understand the correct choice.

That's far too metaphysical for 7:00 AM.

I'll go along with your comments since they imply that propounding my
viewpoint, although perhaps not completely fair and balanced, *will* lead
someone to the correct choice.

And, good morning to you, sir. I've been playing with my camera. I haven't
figured out how to view a NEF (RAW) file with Irfanview, although Adobe
seems to handle it. I may go see if there are any free updates to
IrfanView.

If there is not a RAW add in for InfanView, Picasso does view RAW and is
also free. You can also download a NEF Viewer from Microsoft so you
will be able to view them in "My Pictures".

Thanks.
--
John H

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:05:07 -0800 (PST), 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. 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). 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).

But she can and does prevent opposition sign holders from entering the
gymnasium, no?
--
John H

On Dec 15, 2:04�am, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:05:07 -0800 (PST), 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. �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). �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).

But she can and does prevent opposition sign holders from entering the
gymnasium, no?
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I honestly have no idea, as I'm not following the Hillary campaign. My
favorite person running for POTUS is probably John McCain, but he
stands little chance and my respect for him diminished a lot the last
few years as he turned his back on previous positions in order to
pander to the extremists in his party.

That's the problem with the primary system. To get the nomination a
candidate needs to appeal to the extremists; either to the left or to
the right. To win the general election and to govern well, the
candidate needs to appeal to the middle and bring people together from
both sides. Two different things entirely- and we wonder why elected
candidates seem so bogus all the time.

However,
There's a difference between removing somebody from a venue privately
rented for the purpose of meeting with supporters and kicking a
citizen who expresses a dissenting thought out of the town square.
Bear in mind that CNN, FOX, etc are not public access agencies, they
are private corporations selling a product for a profit. There's
nothing "official" about the made-for-TV news debates. Both networks
promote scripted agendas in their highly editorialized "news"
broadcasts.