Is it normal for a candidate to have Secret Service protection at this stage in the race?

If not, WTF does Romney have protection for on our dime? Fuck that fucker, let him pay for it himself.

"If not, WTF does Romney have protection for on our dime?"

Governor Romney probably does get SS protection by being President Obama's opponent in the election that sooner or later will actually take place.

.
......Romney should be grateful somebody showed up.......

Rmoney and his goons obviously hate free speech.

-Rmoney and his goons obviously hate free speech.

throwing glitter is free speech?

-Is it normal for a candidate to have Secret Service protection at this stage in the race?

it might be part of the conditions and rules of the campaign. I am guessing though. But I have a hard time believing the Secret service is there just for the hell of it....they must be required to cover him and the others at this point.

Rmoney and his goons obviously hate free speech.

#4 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

Not as much as John Kerry. They didn't Tazer the dude.

It's not at all unusual for a candidate to have Secret Service detail even at this early stage. I've read that there are myriad factors that go into the decision to ask for and/or be granted a detail. I'd much rather pay for this than have some Loughner or similar nutter kill a candidate...of either party. Well, I might make an exception for Newt.

GLITTER people...lets stay on topic

Justanidiot,

If he had a container of glitter it could just as easily have been full of sulfuric acid.

Glitter: Similar to Mariah Carey's life story. Mariah plays the role of a young singer who is eager to become a big star. She dates a DJ who helps her get into the music business.

What's next Wisgod? You gonna break out the show tunes?

You haven't seen his Judy Garland impression?

What's next Wisgod? You gonna break out the show tunes?

#12 | Posted by Reagan58

Just trying to stay on topic.

Damn you Wis, I thought I'd drunk enough beer to blot out Gary Glitter.

"Is it normal for a candidate to have Secret Service protection at this stage in the race?
If not, WTF does Romney have protection for on our dime? Fuck that fucker, let him pay for it himself."
#1 | Posted by jpw

The earliest contender to received protection was then-candidate Barack Obama in the 2008 election cycle.

Fuck that fucker, let him pay for it hims....nevermind. -JPW

throwing glitter is free speech?

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2012-02-10 10:24 AM

It is. especially if the glitter is made of shredded money.

Justanidiot,
If he had a container of glitter it could just as easily have been full of sulfuric acid.

#10 | POSTED BY REAGAN58

Relax there Reagan. The glitter bomber would never use sulfuric acid. That might fuck up his shoes.

Is it normal for a candidate to have Secret Service protection at this stage in the race?

Romney asked for Secret Service protection after the Florida primary and it was determined he met the criteria. Herman Cain was protected by the Secret Service even earlier.

I hate the stunt of throwing glitter, pies and other stuff at politicians as a form of protest. It's deeply offensive to put them in physical jeopardy as a publicity stunt. No matter how harmless the object, neither the candidate nor the security detail can know this when it happens.

I hope the punishment this kid faces is enough to send a message to other people to stop doing it.

they already hit ron paul.

He'll obviously enjoy any jail time as long as he's in the male general population.

I say sew his asshole shut and teach him to shit out his mouth a la South Park.

"throwing a missile" - now that's a fucking criminal abuse of power.

Sure disturbing the peace, whatever. But to construe glitter into a "missile" is fucking obserd. Allowing that to stand as a criminal charge is itself CRIMINAL. Welcom to Amerika, home to such an Obamanation.

"But to construe glitter into a "missile" is fucking obserd."

As rcade has tried to tell you, having anything thrown at a public figure is deeply concerning. You have no idea what is being thrown; a strong fear/terror reaction is a normal response until the object is proved harmless. It is already very scary to be out there doing retail politics, knowing full well that Robert Kennedy, George Wallace, Gabrielle Giffords and others have been killed or injured for life by someone suddenly rushing forward with something in their hands.

It's a terroristic act, sorry. It may not be meant to be one, but given this nation's history of assassinations and attempts, it is one.

Maybe the glitter bomber can claim that he "Feels" that deep down in side he's really just a wimpy girl,and arrange with fellow sissy liberals to spend this quality time in a woman's facility.They make this service available to Jr High students with liberals calling for unisex showers and crappers.

throwing glitter is free speech?

#5 | Posted by eberly

maybe he could incorporate himself

But to construe glitter into a "missile" is fucking obserd.

A missile is any thrown or projected object, including a rock. The law only allows 6 months in prison, so it's not considered a particularly serious crime.

Throwing any object at a politician should be taken a lot more seriously than disturbing the peace.

Hmmmm ok so it fits the webster's definition but not the common vernacular. Maybe I been around too much military but when I think missile I'm thinking more like rockets. Even a gun doesn't shoot a "missile" in the common vernacular. But per the definition,

"And how do you want the "potential Romney victims" to expose the pain of the hate Romney represents?"

You buy a piece of fucking oaktag and a Magic Marker and make a protest sign, which you make good and Goddamn sure to hold up in front of any cameras present.

Any more questions?

If not, WTF does Romney have protection for on our dime? Fuck that fucker, let him pay for it himself.

#1 | Posted by jpw at 2012-02-09 11:45 PM

all of the gop people need it...because the left will do anything like this...are absolutely a threat to injure, assault, attempt at silencing, and/or any other sort of activity that could create some sort of threatening situation....THIS IS WHAT THE radical left is willing and prepared to do to keep barry in the white house.

think thats going overboard??

then youve been asleep and are an 'obamadupe'

#29 nope. Thats legal. We were discussing a criminal.

Afkababble:

Let's review the history of attacks on political figures over the past fifty years:

John F. Kennedy - Democrat
Robert Kennedy - Democrat
George Wallace - Independent
Gerald Ford - Republican
Ronald Reagan - Republican
Gabrielle Giffords - Democrat

Looks to me like this kind of thing is fairly equally spread across the board.

think thats going overboard??

Yes. The last target of political violence in this country was a Democratic Congresswoman. Your claim the left is out there trying to injure Republicans to keep Obama in office is hysteria.

Your claim __________ is out there trying to injure _______icans to keep __________office is hysteria.
#33 | Posted by rcade at 2012-02-11 11:58 AM | Reply | Flag: hmmmmmm

Seems its pretty well established that just about any politician trying to garner support from various strong-minded groups risks getting caught up in violent exchanges between such groups when they're brought together from the shadows into public co-existance.

All I'd say is there's a difference between shoes, & glitter vs things like bullets. And yea there's are special aspects to it. Like imagine the KKK candidate on stage with the Black Pathers candidate for the libertarian party debate. hmmmm

okay mary

give me an example of the last time some liberal speaker or something like that was attacked or even heckled..and IM not talking about the radical extremists who on occasion have yelled something at obama for not being EXTREME enough at least in thier eyes...

AND>.....I wasnt' talking about attacks in the regard of your examples...should have clarified that more clearly while I was clearly being clear about the clear difference in clearity when it comes to the clear choice we have on this beautiful CLEAR day in southeast texas

and NO its not happy hour yet...

I would think the situation at had is more of a "projectile" without any "weapon" and would fit a lesser than "terrorist act" definition.

Hence he's only facing 6 months instead of 6 years of jail time.

You got beat up in school quite often didn't you?

"give me an example of the last time some liberal speaker or something like that was attacked or even heckled."

Again, Gabrielle Giffords. Obama was heckled in New Hampshire last November. And in West Hollywood last September. And more besides.

Sorry to refute you, but I hear the Park 'n Shop near you has a special on Thunderbird, so I'm sure you'll regain your equilibrium soon.

Rcade,
Thanks for leaving my headline for 24 hours. It made me giggle. Adding the vids only shows how lame the incident was. The fucking moron didn't even get any glitter on Romney. Juvenile, lame AND the Secret Service has a file with your name on it. TOTAL douche bag.

Again, Gabrielle Giffords

She wasn't attacked for her political ideology.

You got beat up in school quite often didn't you?
#36 | Posted by Tedly at 2012-02-11 12:55 PM | Reply | Flag: No I kicked their asses!

They tried but I was too quick and smart enough to see em commin. When they did catch me I had too much adrenalin, and usually a situational advantage (ie: "The Art Of War"). Like nearly killing Tommy in Kindegarten when him and his "religious instructions" buddies wanted me. After I started bouncing little Tommy's head on the sidewalk they all piled on so I could squeeze out from under the pile, kick big-Mario in the balls and run like hell. Of course that only got me the gunslinger syndrome, and I wasn't that big so it sucked.

Thankfully though "the bigger they come the harder they fall" is quite true. The only time I really got "beat-up" was PJ in 4th grade (a couple of sucker punches too). That little shit was small and fast and no matter how angry I was I couldn't catch him - but he kept showing up from between the crowd and omg - that was a good lesson early on "hit and run" and I used it a few times years later. The HS school principal was wierd about it though. EVERY TIME I had to defend my gun-slinger-status against someone who wanted the reputation of a tough guy... I saw it commin, got to where there were witnesses who'd back me up in stories, and then let er-rip.

So I didn't start anything but the principal wanted me suspended and each time had to settle for getting lectured by my mom why he was the idiot and that their son did better keeping the school safe than he did.

It's not at all unusual for a candidate to have Secret Service detail even at this early stage. I've read that there are myriad factors that go into the decision to ask for and/or be granted a detail.

Fair enough. I'd never heard of a SS detail being assigned to a candidate while the primaries were still underway, I guess I assumed they were given a detail during the general election period.

Fuck that fucker, let him pay for it hims....nevermind. -JPW

Yeah, because I'm such an Obama fan. Do you ever tire of being wrong?

It's not at all unusual for a candidate to have Secret Service detail even at this early stage. I've read that there are myriad factors that go into the decision to ask for and/or be granted a detail.

I would think anyone who's actually a candidate could ask the SS for help with any strange communications and anything they considered a real concern.

The only aspect of that that bothers me is that Obama might just ask the SS to black bag his opponent. Or doncha think he'd commit such a National Discrace Against Amerika?

What is it with the hate mongering left wingers? First a shoe at the rightful President George W. Bush, now this little shitstain throws a goddamn *BOMB*?

Rmoney and his goons obviously hate free speech.

#4 | POSTED BY DARTHCHENEY AT 2012-02-10 10:21 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Simple assault isn't free speech, it's a misdemeanor.

Throwing glitter is assault?

Google "simple assault"

"-Rmoney and his goons obviously hate free speech."
throwing glitter is free speech?
#5 | Posted by eberly at 2012-02-10 10:24 AM

Is "creative destruction"?

Google "simple assault"

That's absurd.(the definition, not googling it)

That's absurd.(the definition, not googling it)

#48 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2012-02-12 03:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG

What's absurd about it? Do you believe it should be legal for people to throw stuff at you, so long as they declare it something "harmless"?

No deflections, either. Answer the question. Do you believe it should be legal for people to throw stuff at you, so long as it's "harmless"?

Glitter? Good thing it was a Democrat doing this.

When the right doesn't like someone they end up shooting them in the head, as well as killing innocent 9-year old girls in the process.

No deflections, either. Answer the question. Do you believe it should be legal for people to throw stuff at you, so long as it's "harmless"?

Given the intent of the law centers around apprehension or intent of harm, yes I think it should be legal for people to throw harmless things since it's, well, harmless. That doesn't lack the intent of harm part in your world?

Glitter? Confetti? Baking powder? Why not?

Bricks? Stones? Of course that's obvious.

Allright. Remember that next time someone decides they don't like you and starts throwing stuff at you.

Allright. Remember that next time someone decides they don't like you and starts throwing stuff at you.

Are you really going to be retarded about this?

Paper or glitter or some such harmless stuff (harmless in every way actually, doesn't cause an personal harm, doesn't damage clothing, items ect) is what's happening and while I might find it annoying, I stand by not characterizing it as a crime.

Move beyond that and of course it changes.