WV Students Not Allowed at Bush Rally

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-30 07:12pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:
Nathan F wrote:Were they screening everyone who came in? Surely they did something to be kicked out.
"Something," eh? Something like wearing a T-shirt celebrating democracy?

"Something" being they weren't registered Republicans.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-30 07:15pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Exactly. They are free, handed out by the GOP to people they WANT to have them. I had an oppurtunity to get tickets to see Cheney in Des Moines a while back, back my information wasn't sent into the secret service in time. But this is exactly the point. They hand the tickets out to who they want to.

Hey retard, political parties are not private organizations. They can't turn people away on a whim.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-30 07:17pm

Durandal wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:Exactly. They are free, handed out by the GOP to people they WANT to have them. I had an oppurtunity to get tickets to see Cheney in Des Moines a while back, back my information wasn't sent into the secret service in time. But this is exactly the point. They hand the tickets out to who they want to.
Hey retard, political parties are not private organizations. They can't turn people away on a whim.

Last time I checked, you can enter into the party. Let's say you are a dem trying to get into a republican event, I have no problem turning you away, or vice versa. While anybody can join, if you don't, why then should they be required to admit you?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-08-30 07:19pm

Because the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise dipshit.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2004-08-30 07:31pm

Talon Karrde wrote:For the 50th time, campaign rally's are for campaign supporters.

Its called Freedom of Speech you jackass.

if they were actually causing trouble, then thats one thing, but to outright bar them just because they "support Kerry" is bullshit. Last I checked, rallies are held on public property so anyone with a ticket is legally free to show up and attend. What, you afraid that someone might have a brain and make up their own mind about Shrubbie instead of following your bullshit dogma?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-30 07:40pm

Vertigo1 wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:For the 50th time, campaign rally's are for campaign supporters.
Its called Freedom of Speech you jackass.

if they were actually causing trouble, then thats one thing, but to outright bar them just because they "support Kerry" is bullshit. Last I checked, rallies are held on public property so anyone with a ticket is legally free to show up and attend. What, you afraid that someone might have a brain and make up their own mind about Shrubbie instead of following your bullshit dogma?

Yeah, cause that's what I said.

Look, sure, I suppose if you want to be technical about it, sure. But answer me this, if it's a campaign RALLY (a rally the last time I checked was suppose to pump up supporters) most likely the people they want there are those who support him. The campaign is not trying to exclude people because they want to infringe on their first ammendment rights, it's just that they want these events to be solely for their supporters.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-30 07:45pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Look, sure, I suppose if you want to be technical about it, sure. But answer me this, if it's a campaign RALLY (a rally the last time I checked was suppose to pump up supporters) most likely the people they want there are those who support him. The campaign is not trying to exclude people because they want to infringe on their first ammendment rights, it's just that they want these events to be solely for their supporters.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS disagrees with you. SCOTUS, being constitutional scholars, an actual court, AND the highest court in the land, is a more reliable source than your say-so. So fuck off with your insistance.

Vertigo1 · Post by **Vertigo1** » 2004-08-30 07:56pm

Talon Karrde wrote:[Look, sure, I suppose if you want to be technical about it, sure. But answer me this, if it's a campaign RALLY (a rally the last time I checked was suppose to pump up supporters) most likely the people they want there are those who support him. The campaign is not trying to exclude people because they want to infringe on their first ammendment rights, it's just that they want these events to be solely for their supporters.

Did you even READ the article in question?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-08-30 09:18pm

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I find it kind of ironic that a candidate with a "family values" agenda insists on turning his rallies into massive partisan wankfests.

All candidates try to do that.

The problem is that Bush and other politicians don't like to see any disagreement, so his campaign pulls stunts like this. 'Free Speech Zones' are an assault on the bill of rights. The sad thing is that this isn't a Bush 9/11 'innovation', as the previous adminstration did it a few times.

Bush's constant use of it is what's shocking.
Kerry may be an improvement of GWB in this regard, but I ain't gonna hold my breath.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-30 09:25pm

Glocksman wrote:The problem is that Bush and other politicians don't like to see any disagreement, so his campaign pulls stunts like this. 'Free Speech Zones' are an assault on the bill of rights. The sad thing is that this isn't a Bush 9/11 'innovation', as the previous adminstration did it a few times.

Protest zones are one thing, but as far as I can tell, Clinton's Secret Service didn't keep away people who were there to hear him just because they weren't Democrats...

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-30 09:36pm

It should be noted that Kerry has hecklers at his rallies because he doesn't dimiss anyone who isn't a mindless Democratic-slave.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-30 10:35pm

Iceberg wrote: Protest zones are one thing, but as far as I can tell, Clinton's Secret Service didn't keep away people who were there to hear him just because they weren't Democrats...

Did you read what I wrote, or the entire article for that matter?

1. The student says a Secret Service agent did not allow him access.

2. The professor says a Secret Service agent forced a volunteer, who tried to evict the prof, to escort him back into the rally.

Something does not add up in that story.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-31 01:37am

Talon Karrde wrote:
Vertigo1 wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:For the 50th time, campaign rally's are for campaign supporters.
Its called Freedom of Speech you jackass.

if they were actually causing trouble, then thats one thing, but to outright bar them just because they "support Kerry" is bullshit. Last I checked, rallies are held on public property so anyone with a ticket is legally free to show up and attend. What, you afraid that someone might have a brain and make up their own mind about Shrubbie instead of following your bullshit dogma?
Yeah, cause that's what I said.

Look, sure, I suppose if you want to be technical about it, sure. But answer me this, if it's a campaign RALLY (a rally the last time I checked was suppose to pump up supporters) most likely the people they want there are those who support him. The campaign is not trying to exclude people because they want to infringe on their first ammendment rights, it's just that they want these events to be solely for their supporters.

Who gives a shit why they want to exclude people? THEY'RE NOT FUCKING ALLOWED TO. PERIOD. END OF FUCKING STORY. THANK YOU SUPREME COURT.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-08-31 12:25pm

Phil Skayhan wrote:
Iceberg wrote: Protest zones are one thing, but as far as I can tell, Clinton's Secret Service didn't keep away people who were there to hear him just because they weren't Democrats...
Did you read what I wrote, or the entire article for that matter?

1. The student says a Secret Service agent did not allow him access.

2. The professor says a Secret Service agent forced a volunteer, who tried to evict the prof, to escort him back into the rally.

Something does not add up in that story.

Did you note that the Students were at a rally in WV, while the Professor was at one held in Ohio?
That might explain why it 'does not add up'.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-08-31 01:21pm

LadyTevar wrote:
Phil Skayhan wrote:
Iceberg wrote: Protest zones are one thing, but as far as I can tell, Clinton's Secret Service didn't keep away people who were there to hear him just because they weren't Democrats...
Did you read what I wrote, or the entire article for that matter?

1. The student says a Secret Service agent did not allow him access.

2. The professor says a Secret Service agent forced a volunteer, who tried to evict the prof, to escort him back into the rally.

Something does not add up in that story.
Did you note that the Students were at a rally in WV, while the Professor was at one held in Ohio?
That might explain why it 'does not add up'.

No, because the agents still have exhibited contradictory behavior.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-08-31 01:21pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:No, because the agents still have exhibited contradictory behavior.

They take orders from the President, yes?

Okay, explanation given.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-08-31 01:54pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:
Iceberg wrote: Requiring a paid admission does not make a public event nonpublic. Sporting events are public events. Concerts are public events. Both require a paid admission for entrance.
The tickets are free, handed out by the GOP.
Exactly. They are free, handed out by the GOP to people they WANT to have them. I had an oppurtunity to get tickets to see Cheney in Des Moines a while back, back my information wasn't sent into the secret service in time. But this is exactly the point. They hand the tickets out to who they want to.

Bullshit. That is what they do, but it is not right. The fact that your partisan wankiong clouds your understanding of the basis of democracy is, putting it mildly, disturbing to the core.

The idea of campaign rallies is that you are suppossed to put your views out to the public so that there can be a fair and open exchange of ideas. You are rallying the masses, not your supporters. You are suppossed to win because your ideas and proposals are the best, not because you can shuffle the most drones to the booth.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-08-31 01:57pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Vertigo1 wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:For the 50th time, campaign rally's are for campaign supporters.
Its called Freedom of Speech you jackass.

if they were actually causing trouble, then thats one thing, but to outright bar them just because they "support Kerry" is bullshit. Last I checked, rallies are held on public property so anyone with a ticket is legally free to show up and attend. What, you afraid that someone might have a brain and make up their own mind about Shrubbie instead of following your bullshit dogma?
Yeah, cause that's what I said.

Look, sure, I suppose if you want to be technical about it, sure. But answer me this, if it's a campaign RALLY (a rally the last time I checked was suppose to pump up supporters)

No dipshit. Check your fucking history books about the development of democracy. You are suppossed to rally everybody, and win over the population with your views, not just hype a small bunch and hope apathy takes care of the rest of the voters.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-09-01 02:03am

LadyTevar wrote: Did you note that the Students were at a rally in WV, while the Professor was at one held in Ohio?
That might explain why it 'does not add up'.

Prather was removed from a Bush rally in Cambridge, Ohio, on July 31 and came to the Wheeling event to find out whether he had been blacklisted.

Hendrake · Post by **Hendrake** » 2004-09-01 08:31am

Talon Karrde wrote:Look, sure, I suppose if you want to be technical about it, sure. But answer me this, if it's a campaign RALLY (a rally the last time I checked was suppose to pump up supporters) most likely the people they want there are those who support him. The campaign is not trying to exclude people because they want to infringe on their first ammendment rights, it's just that they want these events to be solely for their supporters.

WTF? In a campaign rally, you should want to get as many undecided as you can get, not just your supporters, reason being the supporters are very probably going to vote for you anyway and any undecided or even lukewarm supporter or your opposite number is a potential convert. And from the article it looks like the students were there to confront the speeches of the candidates and the party policies, so the convention had a chance to get them vote republican. This way, you can be almost sure they'll vote Democratic.

In Italy yesterday I was at a convention of the communist party despite not being communist and tehre I met with quite a few moderates and rightwingers... And no one even tought it was strange.

So in short, the idea of a party convention being for party members only is, in my opinion, retarded. I don't understand it, it makes no sense to me. Or it is I who is retarded?

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-01 08:39pm

Well this and the reports from University TV and Free Speach TV make me wonder, is someone trying to replace the USA with a 3rd world dictatorship?

and how long before the Secret Service agents start asking if they can wear brown shirts, or double lightning bolts?

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-01 08:45pm

Marksist wrote:More proof that Bush is a fucking coward.

That was beautiful, Marksist.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-02 04:33am

Hell at least Nixon had the balls to run over protesters in LA and his visit to south america....

god, hard to believe this is the same party that once held politcal creatures like Ike and Teddy Roosevelt. Shit TR would have challenged Kerry to a fist fight....

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-09-02 05:43am

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Hell at least Nixon had the balls to run over protesters in LA and his visit to south america....

god, hard to believe this is the same party that once held politcal creatures like Ike and Teddy Roosevelt. Shit TR would have challenged Kerry to a fist fight....

Heh..that has happned a few times in NZ's Parliment-recently

Mind you, a politician in NZ..be they a lowly backbencher or the PM can expect to no only be heckled, but must dodge hurled mud, eggs and fists, even the Queen must be prepared to run an ad hoc gauntlet of biffed items.
Your Politicians are pussies, I am afraid.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-09-02 06:50am

Yeah the last one we had with any balls at all was Teddy Roosevelt....