Secret Service investigating removal of three from Bush visit

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

White House spokesman McClellan said: "My sense is that the volunteer felt that these individuals were coming to the event to disrupt it. If people are coming to the event to disrupt it, naturally they are going to be asked to leave."

But Dan Recht, a Denver lawyer says he's considering legal action on behalf of the ejected critics for what he sees as a violation of their free-speech rights. "They were punished for the speech that was on their bumper sticker," Recht said. "It just feels so un-American."

Good article.

The last two paragraphs really sum it up. "my sense is that the volunteer felt..."

So now we're acting on feelings? "I saw him coming at me on the street and punched him in the face because I felt that he was going to rob me"

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Loki

I wonder if someone could have gotten into the meeting with a "I fucked your mother" t-shirt on.

Would there be outrage if they got kicked out?

The organizers didn't even know they had any kinda of political shirts on. They were kicked out because of the bumper sticker.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

wrong, they can take your camera and give it back afterwards...im sure thats not how it goes down but thats the way it should IMO.

They can also kick you out and have done so on numerous occasions. It's obvious you refuse to concede this normally practiced process and are intent on thinking that these republicans are the first to ask someone to be removed based on that person being a high risk of disrupting.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is just laughable. The reason they didn't "do that" is because they were removed before they had a chance.

I remember that one time I saw this group of kids. I called the cops and had them scatter the group because I just KNEW they were going to rob me. Luckily, "they were removed before they had a chance."

[Arles]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I remember that one time I saw this group of kids. I called the cops and had them scatter the group because I just KNEW they were going to rob me. Luckily, "they were removed before they had a chance."

If they were packing a weapon or had another high risk factor (like the T-Shirts in the town meeting), you probably did the right thing in regards to protecting your property.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is just laughable. The reason they didn't "do that" is because they were removed before they had a chance. It's easy to say after they were removed and shown to have these shirts on that they didn't really plan on going through with it. But, I find it highly unlikely that they would go through the effort in obtaining tickets, syncronizing their outfits and spacing themselves in the event to get exposure - then, suddenly, deciding not to do it because of some sudden realization that it was juvenile.

The reality is the organizers correctly picked out people that were planning on disrupting the event and they were all pissed off because they didn't get their moment to attack Bush. The fact this point has been missed on everyone is quite remarkable.

I find it laughable you accept one group's word as gospel but say another group's is a lie. How do you know? How do you know what would've happened? It's the same as everything else, youre spun. If it fits your line of thought you take it, swallow it, and extoll it but if it doesn't you come up with any way to run it over...even if all the verbage is the same, speculative crap. YOU and ME have no idea the truth, but what we do know is what is the "right behavior" and the "wrong behavior" based upon or laws and constitution. What is being done, when using public tax dollars, is polarizing, prejudicial, and unethical. All they have to do is used fund-raised or donated dollars than my mouth and most everyone else's is shut.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

They can also kick you out and have done so on numerous occasions. It's obvious you receive to concede this normally practiced process and are intent on thinking that these republicans are the first to ask someone to be removed based on that person being a high risk of disrupting.

I said thats the way it should be.....I cant get them to all do what i want

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Loki

I wonder if someone could have gotten into the meeting with a "I fucked your mother" t-shirt on.

Would there be outrage if they got kicked out?

But then the question would be, would that person get kicked out for wearing a shirt like that? The message on the shirt, while lewd, probably would not merit as much concern from a staffer when compared to a shirt with overtly political overtones...

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Again, this is a privately ticketed event that was funded by the government. There are screening and people excluded from these events all the time. This is not like someone was not allowed a chance to vote. There is no "right" to attend and stay at a privately screened event, regardless of whether or not it was publically funded.

were just going to have to disagree then, cuz youre willing to pay for events where people who rightfully get tickets and then because someone "has a feeling" kick them out becasue perhaps somewhere in their brain they are possibly disagreeing with the salesman, and I am not. If they disrupt then kick them out...but tell me because I wear a USFL T shirt and you dont know what USFL is I have to leave. You accept too much.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I find it laughable you accept one group's word as gospel but say another group's is a lie.

I am not accepting either party's "word", I am simply going by the verified facts of the situation. Now, I just want to be 100% accurate here. You feel that this group of anti-Bush activists:

1. Went through the work to obtain these tickets
2. Dressed in a manner completely consistent with someone that would disrupt (ie, all wearing the same hidden T-Shirt saying "Stop his lies")
3. Setup in the town meeting a position to make a disruption

And, with all that, they had absolutely no desire to disrupt the event? Remember, these are not "someone's word" these are facts that have been verified by both sides.
I'm trying to keep a straight face here, but it's difficult. So, to be sure, this is seriously what you believe?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

were just going to have to disagree then, cuz youre willing to pay for events where people who rightfully get tickets

I'm stopping you right here because the tickets were obtained for free. No one "paid" for entry, they were given away for free by congressmen and others. IIRC, it's against the rules to charge people to attend at these events (makes it more like a fundraiser and therefore would violate federally funding guidelines).

[panerd]

What if I was running the event and saw a bunch of guys in dark suits and conservative ties and thought they were a bunch a pricks who cared more about money than anything else in life and wouldn't let them in? Something to think about?

EDIT: Supposed to be a stupid post before I get called a hippie beatnik or worse.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Arles

If they were packing a weapon or had another high risk factor (like the T-Shirts in the town meeting), you probably did the right thing in regards to protecting your property.

t-shirts = high risk factor

RAISE THE TERRA ALERT LEVEL! TIME TO GET NUKULUR BOYS!

[Arles]

Originally Posted by panerd

What if I was running the event and saw a bunch of guys in dark suits and conservative ties and thought they were a bunch a pricks who cared more about money than anything else in life and wouldn't let them in? Something to think about?

Then, my guess is that there would an acceptable level of outrage to your actions to probably deter you from doing it again. Now, if it was found that these people in suits had T-Shirts on underneath that said "Democrats are baby killers" and were affiliated with right wing groups that have a history of disrupting events, the outrage level would probably go away.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm stopping you right here because the tickets were obtained for free. No one "paid" for entry, they were given away for free by congressmen and others. IIRC, it's against the rules to charge people to attend at these events (makes it more like a fundraiser and therefore would violate federally funding guidelines).

1. I meant WE paid for it, not the people that went to it....me and you (taxes)
2. Man, Arles, sounds to me like profiling and the NAACP would have your goiter. Im against it, I think its unethical, and I think its scary that our goverment would behave in a way that is excitingly similar. IT equally scares me that you are ok with it.

I think our issue may be the difference b/w uses tax dollars and not.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by panerd

What if I was running the event and saw a bunch of guys in dark suits and conservative ties and thought they were a bunch a pricks who cared more about money than anything else in life and wouldn't let them in? Something to think about?

First of all, the SS debate, such as it actually is a debate, is ENTIRELY about money. There is an overwhelming consensus regarding the values aspect of the subject. The debate is entirely about which money goes where.

Blood and oil are related, if at all, by many, many degrees of separation.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Then, my guess is that there would an acceptable level of outrage to your actions to probably deter you from doing it again. Now, if it was found that these people in suits had T-Shirts on underneath that said "Democrats are baby killers" and were affiliated with right wing groups that have a history of disrupting events, the outrage level would probably go away.

99% of people are somewhat affiliated with something...I mean shit Im a member of Costco. You have to have some morals, man....and remember that not only is everyone equal but so are their opinions. They may not be right, but they deserve equal attention....without knowing the wrong, youll never know if youre right.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

1. I meant WE paid for it, not the people that went to it....me and you (taxes)
2. Man, Arles, sounds to me like profiling and the NAACP would have your goiter. Im against it, I think its unethical, and I think its scary that our goverment would behave in a way that is excitingly similar. IT equally scares me that you are ok with it.

I think our issue may be the difference b/w uses tax dollars and not.

If your opinion on this was the norm, where is the national outrage? Where's the lawsuits? To this point, this story has next to no play outside of some lefty columnist in Denver, a minor AP blurb and a couple liberal-leaning blogs. To non-partisan people this is really a non-issue. A group of people that seemed to be intent on disrupting a private event being asked to leave is not a big deal to most people.

The fact that some on this thread keep making a mountain out of this as if this action now means people can punch others in face, openly discriminate in other forums or do other crazy things is just silly. This isn't a precedent and has been going on for decades in presidential politics. Now, I get some of you don't feel comfortable with this process and I'm fine with that. I think it's a little paranoid and over-reactive, but I understand people can be a little of both at times. But, in no way should either side of this debate cause "great concern" with the overall issue of civil liberties. Making that leap is just not valid in this case.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

If your opinion on this was the norm, where is the national outrage? Where's the lawsuits? To this point, this story has next to no play outside of some lefty columnist in Denver, a minor AP blurb and a couple liberal-leaning blogs. To non-partisan people this is really a non-issue. A group of people that seemed to be intent on disrupting a private event being asked to leave is not a big deal to most people.

The fact that some on this thread keep making a mountain out of this as if this action now means people can punch others in face, openly discriminate in other forums or do other crazy things is just silly. This isn't a precedent and has been going on for decades in presidential politics. Now, I get some of you don't feel comfortable with this process and I'm fine with that. I think it's a little paranoid and over-reactive, but I understand people can be a little of both at times. But, in no way should either side of this debate cause "great concern" with the overall issue of civil liberties. Making that leap is just not valid in this case.

well, i agree...my opinion is mine only....no one should be punching people.

[Celeval]

Here's why I have a huge problem with this.

Alex Young, 25, an Internet technology worker from Denver who was among the three removed from the event March 17 at Wings over the Rockies, said officials told them the next day they were identified as belonging to the "No Blood for Oil" group.

Young said they belong to no such group, but the car they drove to the event had a bumper sticker that read: "No More Blood for Oil."

The 'No Blood for Oil' site is hxxp://www.nbfo.net/. They have a handful of printable posters, meeting schedules, and the like. They have a link that looks like it should go to an online store, but it seems to be down.

Googling for 'No More Blood for Oil' brings me to two different cafepress stores on the first page. The first is affiliated with a different anti-Bush site. The other has stickers/items on a variety of topics, political and otherwise - including both pro- and anti-Bush. Either way, there is a distinct difference, as what I see on the No Blood for Oil is specifically THAT slogan, without the 'More'. The 'More' pops up in an awful lot of places, including the title of a recent Eminem song.

Yes, these people obviously were not fans of Bush. It is possible, but unproven either way, that they would have disrupted the event in some fashion. However, by the admittance of those running the event, the T-shirts were not a factor in their dismissal.

So as I see it, they were asked to leave because of a link to a group via bumper sticker... but it seems very possible and even likely that the link did and does not exist.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Yes, these people obviously were not fans of Bush. It is possible, but unproven either way, that they would have disrupted the event in some fashion. However, by the admittance of those running the event, the T-shirts were not a factor in their dismissal.

But the T-Shirts do show they were correct in their assumptions. I would certainly agree that this is dangerous game from a political standpoint. If they would have asked someone to leave because they had a Kerry bumper-sticker and it turned out that person had no legit reason to expect that person would disturb the event, the people in charge would pay a political cost.

In this instance, though, they were correct in their assumptions and it was very plausible that these three had a planned demonstration involving their hidden "Stop the Lies" shirts they were wearing.

So, while I think this type of action is dicey in today's political climate if done fairly liberally, I don't see how this instance shows the process is faulty. Again, there's a very good chance that had these three not been shown the door that they could have not only disrupted the event but also been arrested. So, I fail to see the reason for outrage if the organizers correctly IDed people that had a high chance of causing a disruption.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Arles

But the T-Shirts do show they were correct in their assumptions. I would certainly agree that this is dangerous game from a political standpoint.

They were seemingly incorrect in their assumptions - that they were a member of this particular group and intent on causing a disruption. They got lucky, plain and simple.

[illinifan999]

Stores have a sign that says "May refuse service" I guess the Secret Service or whoever decided to refuse service. That's THEIR right.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

They may not be right, but they deserve equal attention....

Okay, I'm gonna try to do this really carefully, because it's something that I really want you to consider. Not "agree", just "consider", and probably "remember" too (if there's any long term goal).

I want to focus strictly on the general premise quoted above, because I believe that it's something that you would apply to subjects other than this specific one. M'kay? I'm not just talking about this incident, just a general rule of thumb.

Now, what I want you to recognize is where we part company on that statement, the caveat that puts me around 180 degrees from you on the generality.

You said "They may not be right, but they deserve equal attention...." to which I would add "... but not forever." In other words, if you've considered and rejected something, based upon whatever criteria you choose to make your judgements on, then it seems the height of inefficiency to continually reconsider it when there is no change in the argument nor in the reason(s) you rejected it.

In fact, doing so reminds me of the quote attributed to Albert Einstein, "“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I remember that one time I saw this group of kids. I called the cops and had them scatter the group because I just KNEW they were going to rob me. Luckily, "they were removed before they had a chance."

So exactly what evidence is required of their intent before you step in and stop them? I'm always amused that people want the police, FBI, CIA, etc to stop crime before it happens, but then get all indignant when someone gets caught with all kinds of incriminating but otherwise legal paraphenalia.

These people were clearly set up to disrupt the event, someone saw the signs and called them on it, and now people are indignant at the outrage. So how do you prevent people from doing something if you have to wait until they do it to stop them?

Sure, you don't break up some random group of kids, but what if you see a gun? Knife? Nazi slogan on a T-Shirt? What do these kids have to be doing before you are willing to call the cops? Actually beat someone up?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

So exactly what evidence is required of their intent before you step in and stop them? I'm always amused that people want the police, FBI, CIA, etc to stop crime before it happens, but then get all indignant when someone gets caught with all kinds of incriminating but otherwise legal paraphenalia.

The people who kicked them out didn't even see the shirts. All they went on was the bumper sticker. That's it.

Anyone else think it's funny that the Bushies would have a hissy about that sticker? Did the sticker hit too close to home?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Okay, I'm gonna try to do this really carefully, because it's something that I really want you to consider. Not "agree", just "consider", and probably "remember" too (if there's any long term goal).

I want to focus strictly on the general premise quoted above, because I believe that it's something that you would apply to subjects other than this specific one. M'kay? I'm not just talking about this incident, just a general rule of thumb.

Now, what I want you to recognize is where we part company on that statement, the caveat that puts me around 180 degrees from you on the generality.

You said "They may not be right, but they deserve equal attention...." to which I would add "... but not forever." In other words, if you've considered and rejected something, based upon whatever criteria you choose to make your judgements on, then it seems the height of inefficiency to continually reconsider it when there is no change in the argument nor in the reason(s) you rejected it.

In fact, doing so reminds me of the quote attributed to Albert Einstein, "“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

okay, I see your point but you also have to consider the fact that times change and therefore contexts may change and whether or not something is right or wrong may change, in the eyes of the courts.

For example, for a long time abortion was illegal than Roe v. Wade happened. Also, many times new court case's nullify what courts have ruled in the past and sometimes this simply can happen based on who or what is being presented.

Therefore, I can see your point but it is a dangerous game to play to discount an opinion because what you'll find is that those in power MAY begin to discount the minority's opinion based PERHAPS not on what the opinion is but the fact that it came from the MINORITY.

I will quote some one in saying that, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrups absolutely." It is the minority opinion that keeps things in check.



IN THIS CASE, my problem is not so much that the Presidnet held a "convention, or presentation, or meeting"....my problem, as Ive explained quite clearly is the fact that:

The administration used Public tax dollars to hold a "TOWN HALL", which semantically lends itself to the fact that MOST people would consider this to be a public forum based on the definition alone (which they may have known - and would be good selling terminology). THEN, the same organizers, based on ONE PERSON's FEELING, proceeded to kick 3 tax payers, who legally received tickets, out of said meeting based on a bumper sticker on their car (no one knew of the T shirts at that moment so that is completely irrelevant to the point im making). That is my problem....to solve this, ALL Bush Jr. would have to do, or any past presidents (Arles) is:

Hold a meeting, or convention, or fund raiser, etc. and then they can pick and choose whomever they want to be there.

thats it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

So exactly what evidence is required of their intent before you step in and stop them? I'm always amused that people want the police, FBI, CIA, etc to stop crime before it happens, but then get all indignant when someone gets caught with all kinds of incriminating but otherwise legal paraphenalia.

These people were clearly set up to disrupt the event, someone saw the signs and called them on it, and now people are indignant at the outrage. So how do you prevent people from doing something if you have to wait until they do it to stop them?

Sure, you don't break up some random group of kids, but what if you see a gun? Knife? Nazi slogan on a T-Shirt? What do these kids have to be doing before you are willing to call the cops? Actually beat someone up?

what signs, did I miss something...I think all it was was a bumper sticker on a car....BIG difference, IMO. Unless, you can show me where it said signage was there...

[Loki]

I think everyone here is in agreement that these guys were going to cause a scene.

Flasch, is your case that they should be allowed to cause trouble before being escorted out?

[Schmidty]

I am starting to despise this country, or at least the people in it. Do you people actually believe that WHATEVER side you are defending politically is the "correct" side? Give me a fucking break. There is no right and there is no wrong politically anymore. Both sides are fucked up and anyone that sides whole-heartedly with one of them is fucking moron. There I said it.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Loki

I think everyone here is in agreement that these guys were going to cause a scene.

Flasch, is your case that they should be allowed to cause trouble before being escorted out?

Seriusly, it has to do with the "public" presentation of what they were doing. Ok so we're in agreement there that the idea was to sell this as a "public" event which is bolstered by the fact that they used tax dollars to hold it.

Then these 3 people were able to get tickets to the event and rightfully so as they didn't use fraudulent measures to get them.

They were tossed on the "presumption" that they would cause a scene and that is one of my problems.

the problems are:

Public event in which some members of the public are excluded after securing a ticket which only a certain number exist.

Kicking someone out on a presumption



Let me tell you, if our government starts acting on presumptions when dealing with members of the public.....YES, I have a big problem with this. If you're okay with this, than I saw a report that linked finger length in men to whether or not they will be prone to violent behavior.....care to start lining up to get your fingers measured any time soon?

YES, This scares me.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I am starting to despise this country, or at least the people in it. Do you people actually believe that WHATEVER side you are defending politically is the "correct" side? Give me a fucking break. There is no right and there is no wrong politically anymore. Both sides are fucked up and anyone that sides whole-heartedly with one of them is fucking moron. There I said it.

this doesnt have to do with politics IMO, its about the proper way to treat people.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

this doesnt have to do with politics IMO, its about the proper way to treat people.

That doesn't change what I said by one iota.

Time to go listen to some Dhamma talks. Yes, I'm a Christian, but nothing calms me when I'm angry like some Theravadan teaching by Ajahn Brahm.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I am starting to despise this country, or at least the people in it. Do you people actually believe that WHATEVER side you are defending politically is the "correct" side? Give me a fucking break. There is no right and there is no wrong politically anymore. Both sides are fucked up and anyone that sides whole-heartedly with one of them is fucking moron. There I said it.

I like this post! Except that I do like this country, and most of the people in it... otherwise i think it's spot on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

okay, I see your point ...

Then at least my efforts were successful in that regard. I prolly ought to just stop right there. But ...

... because what you'll find is that those in power MAY begin to discount the minority's opinion based PERHAPS not on what the opinion is but the fact that it came from the MINORITY.

Okay, maybe I'm just reading this sentence wrong, but for the life of me it looks like you just did same/similar that you're upset with the SS for doing -- presuming a certain degree of guilt before an act took place.

... which semantically lends itself to the fact that MOST people would consider this to be a public forum based on the definition alone

Now, far be it from me to ever give the general public too much credit, but ... I'm having a tough time believing that a majority of the public who pays enough attention to thing to even give a damn that the event was occurring would actually believe that a "public forum" with the POTUS is an unrestricted event. It doesn't work that way, it hasn't worked that way in ... well I'm 37, nearly 38, and I don't ever recall a time when it worked that way, nor can I imagine it will ever work that way -- the security risk is simply too high, regardless of which party is in office.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

YES, This scares me.

Hmm .... ever hear the one about guilty and the barking dog?

[Loki]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Seriusly, it has to do with the "public" presentation of what they were doing. Ok so we're in agreement there that the idea was to sell this as a "public" event which is bolstered by the fact that they used tax dollars to hold it.

Then these 3 people were able to get tickets to the event and rightfully so as they didn't use fraudulent measures to get them.

They were tossed on the "presumption" that they would cause a scene and that is one of my problems.

the problems are:

Public event in which some members of the public are excluded after securing a ticket which only a certain number exist.

Kicking someone out on a presumption



Let me tell you, if our government starts acting on presumptions when dealing with members of the public.....YES, I have a big problem with this. If you're okay with this, than I saw a report that linked finger length in men to whether or not they will be prone to violent behavior.....care to start lining up to get your fingers measured any time soon?

YES, This scares me.

I'll assume that was the non-answer way of saying that they should have been allowed to cause a scene before being kicked out.

[Loki]

That's an interesting position.

[Arles]

As an aside, there's a follow up story on the wire service I get via email that mentions that these three were all members of a political group called "the Denver Progressives" and that this group had been disruptive in other events in the past. It also mentions that one of the people that asked these people to leave stated they were listed on a "watch list" that they had. I don't know anymore than this, but it does seem that there may have been more than just a simple bumper sticker.

Now, the more I read about this story, the more I think there could be one area this unknown republican operative could be in hot water for. I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but I think that a person can only call on the secret service if there is a legitimate threat to the president or someone close to them. This *seems* like this operative used the SS to remove someone that could potentially disrupt the event, but that wasn't truely a threat to the president. This may be something that this person could get in some trouble for as it appears to me to be inappropriate use of the Secret Service. But I want to be very clear, this has nothing to do with the decision to remove the people, simply the manner with which it was done. Had this staffer instead escorted the person out himself or asked event security to do so, he would have been fine from a legal standpoint.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Arles

As an aside, there's a follow up story on the wire service I get via email that mentions that these three were all members of a political group called "the Denver Progressives" and that this group had been disruptive in other events in the past. It also mentions that one of the people that asked these people to leave stated they were listed on a "watch list" that they had. I don't know anymore than this, but it does seem that there may have been more than just a simple bumper sticker.

Much more...like what?

Also, "watch list" for non-violent objectors is pretty fucking scary.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Much more...like what?

Also, "watch list" for non-violent objectors is pretty fucking scary.

Why? Most local organizers have a list of local protestors to look out for on both sides. It's called doing your due dilligence and not risking your event being overrun by hoodlams from either side of the political aisle. It's not like the president or US government had this list.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Why? Most local organizers have a list of local protestors to look out for on both sides. It's called doing your due dilligence and not risking your event being overrun by hoodlams from either side of the political aisle. It's not like the president or US government had this list.

again...i shouldnt have had to have my money pay for the event if I couldnt go to it. that is just not right.

[Glengoyne]

Part of me is proud that the Secret Service can detect bothersome Tshirts from under business attire. Don't even bother trying to get a weapon through, they even have T-shirt detectors.

Another part of me is a bit disappointed that we don't let people be disruptive before removing them from an event.

Maybe there was an minimum IQ level required for participation? The "no blood for oil" bumper stickers are a sure fire indicator for low IQs.

Also since the Secret Service denied involvement in the deal, why wouldn't we believe them. Perhaps they just assumed the fit looking guy in a suit that escorted them out was Secret Service. This really seems much more like something the President's people would do thatn the Secret Service.

Oh and I don't think any official individual identified them as belonging to the "blood for oil" group, I think the folks that got escorted out came to that conclusion.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

again...i shouldnt have had to have my money pay for the event if I couldnt go to it. that is just not right.

You paid for the DNC convention, RNC convention, presidential debates and State of the Union. I doubt any of us could have attended those without serious connections - so why the hang up now?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

You paid for the DNC convention, RNC convention, presidential debates and State of the Union. I doubt any of us could have attended those without serious connections - so why the hang up now?

Debates I have no problem with at all, as it is a necessary part of the election process and the public, unless invited to do so, have been able to attend, if you can get a ticket. I havnt heard of people being booted before the event started though, once they got to their seats.

Stat of the Union, I have no problem with, as most people dont think of it as a public event.

The Conventions I DO have a problem with IF they exclude people from it. However I noticed that Michale Moore was able to attend the RNC so I thought that they did exactly what they shouldve done this time...and he didn't disrupt it, did he? So if they allow people to attend and dont PROFILE then im cool paying for that too, but I think my money should also go to fund independent candidates conventions too.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

again...i shouldnt have had to have my money pay for the event if I couldnt go to it. that is just not right.

Been to many State Dinners lately?

[Comey]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Originally Posted by VPI97
I don't think you understand the First Amendment.


Ditto.

You do realize he was talking about you, right? Maybe you should read what others write next time, and not just jump around some buzzwords.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Celeval

They got lucky, plain and simple.

Yes, they instituting the process of non-Race and non-Gender profiling - one that has helped police catch and convict numerous criminals over the past 50 years. I'd imagine if they did a similar process in the next privately held event, they would probably get "lucky" again.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Debates I have no problem with at all, as it is a necessary part of the election process and the public, unless invited to do so, have been able to attend, if you can get a ticket. I havnt heard of people being booted before the event started though, once they got to their seats.

Numerous people have been asked to leave debated after being admitted and before they began. My mother (a proud lefty) told me of two occassions involving people in the last presidential debate in Phoenix. There's a high level of paranoia by most event handlers for debates because of what's on the line. They also go through significantly more vetting - so it's doubtful these three would have even been allowed to enter given their affiliation with the Denver Progressives group.

Stat of the Union, I have no problem with, as most people dont think of it as a public event.

So, from your standpoint, it's OK to "infringe upon free speech" if people don't think it's a public event? Trying to follow your logic here.

So if they allow people to attend and dont PROFILE

Non-race and non-gender profiling is one of the top assets to police, security and secret service law enforcement. You act as if this is some kind of new phenominon. "Profiling" has been done in every presidential event of record. It's a very useful tool in trying to PREVENT disruption and crime - which is often the first priority of law enforcement and the Secret Service.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Numerous people have been asked to leave debated after being admitted and before they began. My mother (a proud lefty) told me of two occassions involving people in the last presidential debate in Phoenix. There's a high level of paranoia by most event handlers for debates because of what's on the line. They also go through significantly more vetting - so it's dpubtful these three would have even been allowed to enter given their affiliation with the Denver Progressives group.


So, from your standpoint, it's OK to "infringe upon free speech" if people don't think it's a public event? Trying to follow your logic here.


Non-race and non-gender profiling is one of the top assets to police, security and secret service law enforcement. You act as if this is some kind of new phenominon. "Profiling" has been done in every presidential of record. It's a very useful tool in trying to PREVENT disruption and crime - which is often the first priority of law enforcement and the Secret Service.

And here we go again:

ARLES: Just because it is done does not make it right and you dont have to say its "ok" because your slant was the one that did it or not.

State of the Union - most people dont consider a public event (im sure some people felt it was a load of crap)

vs.

a "town hall" in which they do assume it is public.


if you hold an ARLES fundraiser and its at a private place (can be public if rented out for the night) and want to spout off on the greatness of ARLES, then so be it but dont call it a "Town Hall" meeting, or a community gathering, or a public debate....if its not.


If people were kicked out of a debate because people thought they, MIGHT, disrupt, then I dont think that that is right (unless of course they are wearing a badge that says "Im going to yell out" or signage or something like that. You CANNOT LOOK at someone in this country and PREJUDGE them. It is wrong, period!!!!








See what I am is NOT a hypocrite...imagine that. I dont care which party it is, and I dont care if its done everyday....if its not right, its not right