Is anyone attending one of the rallies/protests in NYC?

I'd pay good money to stride through those crowds in a Bush/Cheney campaign shirt. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of a large personal project. I look forward to watching the Kook All-Stars next week.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'd pay good money to stride through those crowds in a Bush/Cheney campaign shirt. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of a large personal project. I look forward to watching the Kook All-Stars next week.[/quote]


I tink most here would agree that you are the most crazy.

I would go, they are giving out free stuff. :)
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'd pay good money to stride through those crowds in a Bush/Cheney campaign shirt. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of a large personal project. I look forward to watching the Kook All-Stars next week.[/quote]

Kook All-stars=Republican convention
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY']Hey PAD, why don't you try and wear a Kerry shirt at a Bush rally....if they would let you in.[/quote]
There is no chance of getting let in.
I thought you had to sign a document swearing your allegience to Bush to be allowed to a Bush rally.
 
I haven't been involved in any political campaign rally or event this year. I really don't see the point going as an individual. Both Democrat and Republican events are staged and the crowds are either bussed in or part of a large organization. The emotion and support generated is canned as well.

Kook All-Stars= Black Panthers, ANSWER, SHAC, ISM, Anarchist Black Cross, The Organization, No Police State etc. You can read a little more about these "mainstream" organizations here.
 
Common sense should reveal to you people that the reason they don't let liberals into bush rallies is because there is a 99% chance of them being there soley to be a stupid ass and try to mess up their gathering.

I was watching c-span not too long ago and I saw like 2 or 3 conferences where conservative book publishers were speaking about their books, and guess what? At each of those there was some stupid ass liberal being loud, speaking out of turn, and generally doing everything he could to make everyone miserable. At one of the conferences they asked the moronic idiot to leave, but he kept saying that he wasn't doing anything wrong.
 
Oh brother people...

Do you think they let in Bush rallies at the Democratic one? No, because that would wreck the party inside, so does it matter? No, you want freedom of speech speak outside.
 
I think you meant Bush supporters at a dem rally. And yes they do let them in. Anyone can get into a dem rally, there is no one checking to see if you are a dem or a repub in order to get in.
 
With all of the savage, fanatical hatred towards him from the left I don't blame Bush for this policy because loud, obnoxious dissent can quickly turn into violence.

Crazies who just went in there to protest can just as quickly decide to burn the place down or hurt someone.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']With all of the savage, fanatical hatred towards him from the left I don't blame Bush for this policy because loud, obnoxious dissent can quickly turn into violence.

Crazies who just went in there to protest can just as quickly decide to burn the place down or hurt someone.[/quote]

That's pure nonsense. That's why they have security at rally's. So does that mean you are saying that Bush's security cannot handle a crowd? The crowd's for Kerry are much bigger than Bush's and there hasn't been problems.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']With all of the savage, fanatical hatred towards him from the left I don't blame Bush for this policy because loud, obnoxious dissent can quickly turn into violence.

Crazies who just went in there to protest can just as quickly decide to burn the place down or hurt someone.[/quote]

Then we'd have another seven minute video of our Commander in Chief standing there not knowing what to do in a crisis.
 
It's amazing how quickly people seem to forget the "Free Speech Zone" at the DNC.
Those areas penned in with fencing and razor-wire is still more offensive to me than just about anything else from either side that I've seen in this dirty campaign. At the moment, I don't want to vote for either of them.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']It's amazing how quickly people seem to forget the "Free Speech Zone" at the DNC.
Those areas penned in with fencing and razor-wire is still more offensive to me than just about anything else from either side that I've seen in this dirty campaign. At the moment, I don't want to vote for either of them.[/quote]

It definitely was offensive, but Bush was doing it first.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']It's amazing how quickly people seem to forget the "Free Speech Zone" at the DNC.
Those areas penned in with fencing and razor-wire is still more offensive to me than just about anything else I've seen in this dirty campaign war.[/quote]

That was at the convention which was by invitation only. Bush & Cheney are requiring loyalty oaths for people to hear their campaign speeches and Bush is pretending it's an open forum by taking questions from "the public."

Kerry's rallies are open to anyone. Make of that what you will but it sounds like someone is scared of being confronted by people who disagree.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Scrubking']With all of the savage, fanatical hatred towards him from the left I don't blame Bush for this policy because loud, obnoxious dissent can quickly turn into violence.

Crazies who just went in there to protest can just as quickly decide to burn the place down or hurt someone.[/quote]

That's pure nonsense. That's why they have security at rally's. So does that mean you are saying that Bush's security cannot handle a crowd? The crowd's for Kerry are much bigger than Bush's and there hasn't been problems.[/quote]

Please use your brain. If 500 are allowed in and 150 are crazies do you think that they will be stopped without any damage being done?

The fact is that if Bush let's anyone in the crazies will follow him around the country in droves and try to shut down every one of his rallies or worse.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='Scrubking']With all of the savage, fanatical hatred towards him from the left I don't blame Bush for this policy because loud, obnoxious dissent can quickly turn into violence.

Crazies who just went in there to protest can just as quickly decide to burn the place down or hurt someone.[/quote]

That's pure nonsense. That's why they have security at rally's. So does that mean you are saying that Bush's security cannot handle a crowd? The crowd's for Kerry are much bigger than Bush's and there hasn't been problems.[/quote]

Please use your brain. If 500 are allowed in and 150 are crazies do you think that they will be stopped without any damage being done?

The fact is that if Bush let's anyone in the crazies will follow him around the country in droves and try to shut down every one of his rallies or worse.[/quote]


Again, your reasoning is pure nonsense.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Please use your brain. If 500 are allowed in and 150 are crazies do you think that they will be stopped without any damage being done?

The fact is that if Bush let's anyone in the crazies will follow him around the country in droves and try to shut down every one of his rallies or worse.[/quote]

Are you saying that pro-Bush crazies are less dangerous than Pro-Kerry ones and that's why Kerry rallies haven't been shut down? Or are you admiting that more people are angry at Bush for screwing up the country the last four years and their numbers can't be contained?
 
About the same amount of people are angry at bush as any other pres - they are just more fanatical about it. The current state of politics in this country has driven people into blind radicalism on both sides. Not to mention the office of the president has always necessitated more protection than the rest.
 
You guys do know that theres such a thing as the Secret Service don't you? Mayhaps they don't like extreamists going in. Sure 99% won't do anything but then all you need is 1%.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']It's amazing how quickly people seem to forget the "Free Speech Zone" at the DNC.
Those areas penned in with fencing and razor-wire is still more offensive to me than just about anything else from either side that I've seen in this dirty campaign. At the moment, I don't want to vote for either of them.[/quote]


That was not done by the Democrats that was done because the Bush people said that there could be terror attacks then (there can always be a terror attack!) and the city biuld the "Freedom Cage" for it. The best part was that no one went in there and people protested done the streets and instead of the police arresting them they marched in front of them to move the traffic out of the way.
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='JSweeney']It's amazing how quickly people seem to forget the "Free Speech Zone" at the DNC.
Those areas penned in with fencing and razor-wire is still more offensive to me than just about anything else from either side that I've seen in this dirty campaign. At the moment, I don't want to vote for either of them.[/quote]


That was not done by the Democrats that was done because the Bush people said that there could be terror attacks then (there can always be a terror attack!) and the city biuld the "Freedom Cage" for it. The best part was that no one went in there and people protested done the streets and instead of the police arresting them they marched in front of them to move the traffic out of the way.[/quote]

The protesters taking part in civil disobedience by refusing to protest in the free speech zone is great. You trying to put the blame for the free speech zone on Bush isn't.

Considering that the DNC and RNC are high profile high visablity events make them automatically more attractive as targets for a terrorist attack. The fact that you could get high visablity, rattle some of the politicians, and possibily even create enough case to create a period of instablity for long enough to launch a few other attacks makes them even moreso.

It'd be foolish NOT to think that the DNC and RNC wouldn't be attractive targets.

I still fault the people that ran the DNC however, as they could have very easily told the city that the "free speech zone" was ridiculous as it was, and they should reconfigure it so that it looked more like standard barriers and police barricades (like you'd see at just about any major event in a big city), and less like an internment camp.

If any fool in New York tries to do the same thing, I'll be just as angry.
It may be naive of me, but I find it hard to believe that everything that every agency of the federal government does is politically motivated.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']You guys do know that theres such a thing as the Secret Service don't you? Mayhaps they don't like extreamists going in. Sure 99% won't do anything but then all you need is 1%.[/quote]

This is still America, not communist Russia or China where you cannot protest. Your pict you added just goes to show you are not interested in issues, but name calling and mud slinging.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='gamefreak']You guys do know that theres such a thing as the Secret Service don't you? Mayhaps they don't like extreamists going in. Sure 99% won't do anything but then all you need is 1%.[/quote]

This is still America, not communist Russia or China where you cannot protest. Your pict you added just goes to show you are not interested in issues, but name calling and mud slinging.[/quote]

I think a great deal of it depends on HOW the people plan to protest.
Shutting protesters out completely is wrong, but so is just giving them carte blanche. Unfortunately, this always seems to be an issue that gets handled well only in hindsight.
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='gamefreak']You guys do know that theres such a thing as the Secret Service don't you? Mayhaps they don't like extreamists going in. Sure 99% won't do anything but then all you need is 1%.[/quote]

This is still America, not communist Russia or China where you cannot protest. Your pict you added just goes to show you are not interested in issues, but name calling and mud slinging.[/quote]

No ones saying they can't protest. What they can't do is lead a protest against the president when he's right there. I don't believe any Secret Security officer would allow since Lincoln's assasaination. Where did I sling mud in my post? Did I saw that the Democrats are going to blow up the convention? No. I said that this is about the president's security and not about taking your rights away because it makes him look bad.
 
Clinton often went out in public with limited protection, he could have easily been killed but he wasn't, because he is a good person.

Bush won't get anywhere near anyone who has not been checked out and he will NOT go out in public without an armored motorcade and a small army of secret service bodyguards.
 
I am not so concerned about the Free Speech Zones as they seem to a recent development in light of 9/11. I can't recall any President using them before Dubya.

What concerns me is the loyalty oaths that people are having to sign to see a speech by Cheney or Bush. Does anyone think this is a good idea and a step forward for democracy?
 
After all the ultra conservative right wing reporters (Bill O' Riley, etc.) they let into the DNC they should let the BBC and Al Jazeera into the RNC.

Of course, there is a chance Cheney would have a heart attack if he saw a non-partisan news network at the RNC.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Clinton often went out in public with limited protection, he could have easily been killed but he wasn't, because he is a good person.
.[/quote]

You're right, good people always allow the siege of American men, women and children for 51 days and then allow their AG to illegally comandeer regular military hardware (In violation of the posse comitatus statutes.) to burn and gas 81 Americans to death.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='Quackzilla']Clinton often went out in public with limited protection, he could have easily been killed but he wasn't, because he is a good person.
.[/quote]

You're right, good people always allow the siege of American men, women and children for 51 days and then allow their AG to illegally comandeer regular military hardware (In violation of the posse comitatus statutes.) to burn and gas 81 Americans to death.[/quote]

I herby rename you to 'Honest Al', for your ability to always write the unbiased truth.

A good man like Bush sends over 1,000 people to their deaths in an oil-control war. =]
 
After all the ultra conservative right wing reporters (Bill O' Riley, etc.)

With every post you reveal yourself to be the most ignorant tool I have seen! How can Bill be "ultra conservative right wing" when he gets bashed by them all the time. Ann Coulter just bashed O'Riley for his fair analysis of the swift boat controversy:

"There are several methods of evaluating the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, 254 of whom have signed a letter saying John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief.

There is the Bill O'Reilly method, which is to abandon independent thinking and simply come out in the middle, irrespective of where the two sides are. In response to Newt Gingrich's remark that the Swift Boat Veterans' independent ads were "the conservative movement's answer to Michael Moore," O'Reilly said, "I don't want either of them."

In Nazi Germany, O'Reilly would have condemned both Hitler's death camps and the Warsaw ghetto uprising. In Bill O'Reilly's world, King Solomon would have actually cut the disputed baby in half.

The O'Reilly method of analysis works well about once a century. The last time was when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14817
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top