Unfreedom of speech

MagiK,

I am not going to address your total post because 1) i don't feel like continually backing myself up with facts people refuse to believe, statements made that I think are just that are then shot down by those who would like the masses (baa) to see otherwise, and 2) I have homework and housework I need to get done tonight and tomorrow so that I can take Sunday off.
My workload at this moment is so far over my head I can only hope for a day of rest at this point in time.

Nothing personal in the first half of my reasons, I am just tired of bickering back and forth with people I otherwise like when there is no real valid reasoning in bickering to begin with...there are better and more positive ways to spend ones time.

I do want to point out though that the Bush protesters in Oregon weren't violent but were treated violently. Some facts seem to be passed over in order to argue opinions and thoughts. That's kind of sad don't you think?

Personally, I have nothing to fear as long as I keep my personal opinions limited and for the most part private. That's not hard to do and doesn't make me fearful of having them. I just know that if Dubya remains in office, things will get much worse before they get better and I know I am not alone in this thought.

As strictly as you adhere to your own beliefs, I would not attempt to disuade you from believing in them so don't fear we can't converse over other topics but politics will no doubt have us butting heads and going in circles until the end of time and I don't know if you feel it too but I find it sadly tiring after a while. Like I said before, there are more positive ways to spend ones time. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Anyway. I have books to crack, homework to do, reports to write, articles to critique, dinner to cook, a house to clean and clothes to wash. Maybe we can talk again on Sunday if I am not asleep LOL.

Take Care
[img]smile.gif[/img]

P.S. and no, I can't show you one person who has been imprisoned for speaking their mind (against government policies) but I can show you someone who has since been abused by the system they protested because they chose to protest...me...and I have since been jailed for crimes I didn't commit.
Law doesn't have to have law in order to enforce their own brands of "justice" against those who publicly oppose them.
Be Careful & Have a Great Weekend.

[ 09-06-2002, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: Moni ]

[Spelca]

Originally posted by MagiK: Lol all three of those sources are highly biased and have readily apparant agendas and they aint to the right or center O'reily's protest of no spin is like the NRA saying they are not pro-gun. Yes I agree they are good sources of NEWS but it in no way can they be considered unbiased...just for the record You should see what AP newswire looks like before it gets into this country You would be AMAZED what they filter out..strictly for your own good of course

Sorry, but it seems that you often refuse certain sources because they don't support your idea. You can't claim they just make everything up, especially if more of them say similar things... And you also can't claim other sources (right and center) aren't biased either. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
(I deleted the smileys in your post because there was no space for mine). [img]tongue.gif[/img]

-----------------

Now about 'biased' newspapers... I think I've written this once before. [img]smile.gif[/img] Not all protests are violent (not talking about sport 'demonstrators' here...). Actually, most of them are peaceful. The police often makes them violent by pushing people, by surrounding them, arresting innocent people, beating them, etc. This doesn't happen all the time, of course, but there are cases where the violence was caused by the police. An example; a couple of protesters became violent, so the rest of the protesters sat down on the floor and sang peaceful songs to stop it, when the police came at them and beat them. - If I remember correctly, this happened in Germany. I read it on some site when I was looking for a different view of demonstrations reported on tv... [img]smile.gif[/img] Another example could be a small group of people in Slovenia giving out food to the homeless and singing in a park. They were known for being Anti-NATO and because some important people in Slovenia want to join the NATO they were all monitored with cameras and written down by the police even though they didn't do anything wrong. As a comparison, there was another protest a day earlier and there was almost no police in sight. [img]smile.gif[/img]

What I wanted to say was that the newspapers often report about demonstrations making the demonstrators the bad ones. Why? Because it makes the news more interesting. [img]smile.gif[/img] Now, I'm not saying all demonstrators are peaceful; sometimes there are a couple of people that are violent, but then usually the whole crowd gets it. And the police often make it worse. [img]smile.gif[/img]

-------------------------------

I personally think it's wrong to tell one side of the protesters to go behind a fence. If you put them behind a fence, then put them all there. The Pro-Bush and Anti-Bush. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Rokenn: [QB Here is another food for thought item: On one hand we have a person accused of planning to make a 'dirty bomb' on uncorroborated information On the other we have a Florida doctor caught with a huge cache of weapons, bombs, anti-personal mines, and detailed attack plans for attacking local Muslim buildings. One had full access to the legal system from the day he was detained, the other did not. One was armed to the teeth, the other was not. One was captured based on 'secret evidence', the other by police responding to a domestic disturbance call. One is Muslim, the other is not. Remember the second greatest act of domestic terrorism was perpetrated by an ex-military white christian. I guess my main point here is that if we focus so hard on denying rights to or subjugating certain ethnic/religious groups to special measures we do two things. We alienate people within those communities that may have valuable information and two we will miss the guy coming from the other direction with a truck bomb and a van full of weapons.[/QB]

Here's your desert for thought: One was planning with the help of a foriegn gov't and known members of a terrorist group (AN ACT OF WAR as Definded by any of the reconized treaties or conventions used in the international comunity), One was planning and criminal act based on his OWN stupid prejudices. One was caught based on evidence gathered through legaly sactioned Intel. collected by the authorized FEDERAL agencies. One was caught by blind-ass luck by average beat cops, authorized and given the powers of arrest ONLY in the comunity in which they are employed, and not by the Federal gov't. One will be tried as a terrorist, one will be tried as a "hate criminal".
I will agree that we as a nation must keep our eye out for all kinds of threats, no matter where they come from.

[John D Harris]

Admendment 1 Constitution of the United States of America:
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion,or prohibititing the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or the of the press: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
1) The man and his sister WERE NOT stopped from petitioning the government, just as the constitution says. Rather they were stopped from petitioning the government in the manner in which they wanted to petition the government, not a right under the 1st admendment. They have the right to petition the government not the the right to petition the government when and in any manner in which they choose! Anyone that thinks other wise, try busting into any court, legistaltive(sp?), or exeutive branch of any State, Federal, or local government. Then see if your lawyer can get you off using the "right to petition the government for a redress of grievances" defense. Then while you've got the time on your hands in between breaking big rocks into little rocks, you can ponder why the judge that sentenced you, failed to see logic of your interptation of the 1st admendment.
2)Congress DID NOT pass any law stating American citizens can't protest their government. They were moved by the security in order to protect the President from potentcial(sp?) harm, Not stopped from protesting!!!!!!!

[ 09-06-2002, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Attalus]

Yep, John, that is the whole point of contention. The protester feel they have the right to go anywhere and hold their little acts of performance art. I se that everyone on the side of the protesters has ignored what happened in Seattle. That started out as a peaceful protest, too, and degenerated into a riot. Wherever there is a chance of that happening, the police have the right to designate areas for protest. BTW, I have been waiting for someone to identify that cliched, overworked quotation about "When they came..." It was Dietrich Bonhoefer. And, he was talking about the Nazis, not American police. It does make a difference.

[Spelca]

But why did only the 'anti-Bush' people have to go behind a fence? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Edit - grammar. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-06-2002, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Spelca: But why did only the 'anti-Bush' people have to go behind a fence? [img]tongue.gif[/img] Edit - grammar. [img]smile.gif[/img]

According(sp?) to the article sited "County Police Superintendent Ken Fulton said the U.S. Secret Service specified crowd-control procedures to ensure Bush's safety. His officers, he said, were enforcing rules put in place by federal agents." Which would be logical for security reasons, if there are two groups of people one pro, and one anti. From which group would the most likely threat come from? After all the Secret Service put their pants on the same way as the rest of us, they aren't mind readers. They can only do what they can do.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by John D Harris: According(sp?) to the article sited "County Police Superintendent Ken Fulton said the U.S. Secret Service specified crowd-control procedures to ensure Bush's safety. His officers, he said, were enforcing rules put in place by federal agents." Which would be logical for security reasons, if there are two groups of people one pro, and one anti. From which group would the most likely threat come from? After all the Secret Service put their pants on the same way as the rest of us, they aren't mind readers. They can only do what they can do.

How did they know one of the anti people wasn't hiding in the pro crowd? If I were one of them that's what I'd do. [img]tongue.gif[/img] *poke* [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Attalus: BTW, I have been waiting for someone to identify that cliched, overworked quotation about "When they came..." It was Dietrich Bonhoefer. And, he was talking about the Nazis, not American police. It does make a difference.

Unless you have an agenda to push, then everybody MUST conform to you're side, and forget their rights. Any resistance by anyone in authority must be a diobolical conspiracy brought forth from the very bowels of "Hell Itself".

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Spelca: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: According(sp?) to the article sited "County Police Superintendent Ken Fulton said the U.S. Secret Service specified crowd-control procedures to ensure Bush's safety. His officers, he said, were enforcing rules put in place by federal agents." Which would be logical for security reasons, if there are two groups of people one pro, and one anti. From which group would the most likely threat come from? After all the Secret Service put their pants on the same way as the rest of us, they aren't mind readers. They can only do what they can do.

How did they know one of the anti people wasn't hiding in the pro crowd? If I were one of them that's what I'd do. [img]tongue.gif[/img] *poke* [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Well I debated with myself about even mentioning it, but historicaly most, if not all of the attempts and sucesses on the lives of leaders came from an Anti hiding in the pro crowds. But if the Secret Service had their way the President would never be in public.