Republican "Brown Shirts"?

I don't recall previous administrations being this isolated from protesters and any hint of dissent. It would be interesting to know if Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan had anything similar.

At face value, this is a scary looking document.

So, you can be arrested for not following the orders of "Bush staffers". Nice country you have here, Mr. Pike.

This is nothing compared to the ACLU play book.

"This is nothing compared to the ACLU play book.

Posted by wisgod"

Why don't you go ahead and post it then, so we can compare.

Yeah. Post the names of any ACLU staffers that got someone arrested for violating dress code while you're at it.

......they also have this kind of freedom of expression in China and Cuba.......

Obama must have a similar book with similar strategies of engagement. When in Springfield Il. the protesters that showed up to his rally got ZERO time in the press. Funny how this stuff works.

This is nothing compared to the ACLU play book.

Posted by wisgod

Isn't it fun to make brainless comments with absolutely no basis in truth and then run away.

"Obama must have a similar book with similar strategies of engagement. When in Springfield Il. the protesters that showed up to his rally got ZERO time in the press. Funny how this stuff works.

Posted by Incubus_Con"

OK, that was a ludicrous statement, but I'll bite.

What protesters? Were you there? If yes, then tell us how Obama or his campaign workers thwarted the protester's efforts. If no, then how do you know about if it got ZERO press?

#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money.
#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.
#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy.
#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security.
#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian.
#6. The ACLU advocate open borders.
#7. The ACLU are pro-death. (abortion and euthanasia)
#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts.
#9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
#10 The ACLU was founded by Communist

"The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform," the manual states. "If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!)."

Seems pretty tame compared to what Liberals and democrats do to demonstrators at their rally's.

I've personally witnessed GOP demonstrators having their signs ripped out of their hands, broken and trampled on and the GOP demonstrators being shoved, pushed and spit on while being told that "no hate speech" will be tolerated here.

OK, that was a ludicrous statement, but I'll bite.

What protesters? Were you there? If yes, then tell us how Obama or his campaign workers thwarted the protester's efforts. If no, then how do you know about if it got ZERO press?


Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-08-22 09:30 AM


I live in the area. I know several people that were there. They weren't allowed anywhere near him but were kept blocks away. Go figure... again, it's funny how this stuff works.

Just for your info. I also personally know the person that drove the truck Al Gore stood on while campaigning for the 2000 election in Springfield. Same deal different politician.

Time to grow up. Most people aren't nearly as partisan as most of you here seem to think.

#12 The ACLU supported Rush Limbaugh


I s'pose that requiring Loyalty Oaths wasn't enough, so other forms of drowning out dissent and keeping the Kool-Aide drinkers in lockstep were required.

A war of anecdotes doesn't compare to the violations, arrests, awards and settlements against the GOP that are documented.

I have personally witnessed Rethugs intimidating voters and polling officials here in Florida, then being given rewards and jobs in the admin for their brownshirt activites.

Sounds to me like there is a problem in Springfield. Perhaps you should speak to Chief Wiggum about their policies.

#1 The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.

#2 Absolute lie. The ACLU supports the right of NAMBLA to express their beliefs and promote legislation to further their aganda. Why? Because this is America.

#3 What?

#4 Huh?

#5 The ACLU is in favor of getting ALL religion out of government. Just like Thomas Jefferson.

#6 Yeah, whatever.

#7 The ACLU is pro-let people decide what to do with their lives and bodies. YOU want the government to decide.

#8 HA HA!!

#9 Yeah, sure Jackass.

#10 So what? Is communism illegal. I'm sure you'd like it to be illegal, because you're a fascist.

None of the above sound like ANYTHING that this thread is about, but you had to make your idiotic comment because that's all you have.

but you had to make your idiotic comment because that's all you have.

Posted by RastaCyborg

And you responed to all ten items, Commrade Dipshit.

Republican "Brown Shirts"?

Posted by Species8472


Read a history book fuckface...

Yeah, because I'm tired of listening to bullshit.

"The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform," the manual states. "If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!)."


If this silences protesters then liberals really are pussies...

If someone gets zero press then you should take it up with.....the press.
Oh wait, I forgot, the librul media won't print anything critical of Democrats.

Oh, and WISGOD's irrational fear of the ACLU makes me laugh, where was your criticsm of them when they were defending your leader Rush????

Only paranoid lunes fear an organization who's only purpose is to defend our rights under the Constitution.

Seems pretty tame compared to what Liberals and democrats do to demonstrators at their rally's. - Bowa.

The point of this thread you righties are completely ignoring is that this source was a WHITE HOUSE MANUAL, paid for by your tax dollars.

It is disgusting, and almost certainly illegal.

............we are returning to McCarthyism on a frightening scale......

....did we not learn from it the last time ??.....

....or did some people just take the lesson that they have to be better at it this time...???.........

This is nothing compared to the ACLU play book.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-08-22 09:18 AM



The Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

It is disgusting, and almost certainly illegal.

Posted by sitdown


Holding signs and shouting "USA! USA!" is illegal?

But that does not mean the White House is against dissent -- just so long as the president does not see it. In fact, the manual outlines a specific system for those who disagree with the president to voice their views. It directs the White House advance staff to ask local police "to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route."




perhaps the dimwit in chief could benefit from hearing something other than the voices in his head.

why is bush so threatened by a sign critical of him?

man he has low self esteem

Here's some history:

In Munich in the fall of 1920, Hitler created the Ordnertruppen, a body of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers in order to protect gatherings of the Nazi party, from disruptions from Social Democrats and Communists.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Posted by truthhurts


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Yeah, the ACLU follows this to a tee.

why is bush so threatened by a sign critical of him?


Why do liberals run away crying because another group of Americans chants louder or holds up larger signs...

God its no wonder there was little dissent and even less media coverage before the war... the stench of Tuna flowing from the liberal protestors kept moderates and the press away!

What's the big deal here? Are they using violence to stop the protesters? Are the protesters prevented from getting their message out? As soon as they are prevented from speaking freely let me know, then we have an issue.

Here's some history:

In Munich in the fall of 1920, Hitler created the Ordnertruppen, a body of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers in order to protect gatherings of the Nazi party, from disruptions from Social Democrats and Communists.

Posted by RastaCyborg


Right, cuz the Brownshirts were known for their signs and loud chants, right Rasta?

None of the above sound like ANYTHING that this thread is about, but you had to make your idiotic comment because that's all you have.

Posted by RastaCyborg

So the retard turns right around and posts something about Hitler

Sounds to me like there is a problem in Springfield. Perhaps you should speak to Chief Wiggum about their policies.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-08-22 09:40 AM |


I'd bet my money that it's the same in all places, be it Springfield,(which is btw the capital of Illinois)Columbus, Topeka etc.....

Politicians have more in common with other politicians than they'll ever have in common with their so called constituents.

What's the big deal here? Are they using violence to stop the protesters? Are the protesters prevented from getting their message out? As soon as they are prevented from speaking freely let me know, then we have an issue.

Posted by taxman


We're agreeing way too much lately...

Did anyone else at first glance look at the headline and think it said, "White House Manual: How to Shut Down Protesters." I saw that and wanted to see what its all about, but its Shout down... who the fuck gets shouted down?

Why do liberals run away crying because another group of Americans chants louder or holds up larger signs...

Robtada al Sadr posts the above

Of course he didnt read the article.

The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing.

People were arrested without cause and are suing.

of course by the time they were out of jail, bush had moved on and his poor poor eyes didnt have to set upon the bad bad shirts.

why is bush afraid of a shirt?

"Yeah, the ACLU follows (the first amendment) to a tee."
Posted by wisgod

They do. Care to post any actual cases where you believe they didn't?

We're agreeing way too much lately...

With HRC possibly getting the nomination we may be agreeing on a lot more things in the future.

God its no wonder there was little dissent and even less media coverage before the war... the stench of Tuna flowing from the liberal protestors kept moderates and the press away!

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole



no you reading comprehension challenged douche. The point of the manual is positioning protesters so the media cant see em.

But why let that get in the way of your "arguement"?

Truth, that is a different situation and I agree that lines were crossed there - that is why those individuals were able to recover damages.

The situation addressed here has to do with shouting over others which is totally different than arresting them and hauling them off to jail.

People were arrested without cause and are suing.


Truthy is trying to make it sound like the Bush Administration is arresting protesters left and right and sending them to Gitmo. TWO protestors were arrested and rightfully sued and were awarded damages, but that is not the standard operating procedure and not what this thread is about. This is about counter-protesters being sent to hold up larger signs and shout louder... and you liberal puss-bags actually caved to it.

Wow, they settled the lawsuit for 80 grand. Wonder how much I'll get when I show up to one of Hillarys events with a shirt that says Hillary sucks and picture of a donkey dick?

surely that's worth twice as much.

Truth, that is a different situation and I agree that lines were crossed there - that is why those individuals were able to recover damages.

The situation addressed here has to do with shouting over others which is totally different than arresting them and hauling them off to jail.

Posted by taxman


Ouch even the people on your side are pointing out that you're a dishonest little bitch...

But that does not mean the White House is against dissent -- just so long as the president does not see it.

This seems to be an important operating principle of the Bush administration, that nothing be allowed to disturb the serenity of his highness.

Wonder how much I'll get when I show up to one of Hillarys events with a shirt that says Hillary sucks and picture of a donkey dick?

surely that's worth twice as much.

Posted by Incubus_Con

I have little doubt that you own t-shirts with pictures of donkey dicks on them.

Truthy is trying to make it sound like the Bush Administration is arresting protesters left and right and sending them to Gitmo. TWO protestors were arrested and rightfully sued and were awarded damages, but that is not the standard operating procedure and not what this thread is about. This is about counter-protesters being sent to hold up larger signs and shout louder... and you liberal puss-bags actually caved to it.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole



no robtada, I am only stating the truth.

Bush stage manages his events so that he doesnt even see someone who doesnt like him. That makes him a pussy. and an ignorant pussy at that.

You point out the effect. Idiots like you can than argue that there arent many protests.

Yes because due to your cowardly ignorant leader's rules protesters must stand a thousand miles away from him.

So it APPEARS to people like you that noone is protesting the president.

the libs arent pussies for bringing the lawsuit (pretty reasonable resolution for false arrest and seeming harrasment) while bringing to light your leader's lack of balls.

Still waiting for some actual information from Wisgod.
Any links to real info or just more nonsense?

I'll give you some help wisgod:

THIS is a fact:

#1 The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency. The ACLU is supported by annual dues and contributions from its members, plus grants from private foundations and individuals. We do not receive any government funding.

THIS is bullshit propaganda:

#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money.

Any links to real info or just more nonsense?

Posted by RastaCyborg

Retard, first you say that my post had nothing to do with this thread and now you're looking for more. You are one Bi-Polar ass.

the libs arent pussies for bringing the lawsuit (pretty reasonable resolution for false arrest and seeming harrasment) while bringing to light your leader's lack of balls.

Truthy, even Taxman pointed out you're being dishonest about this... no one is saying that these two weren't wronged and were entiled to seek damages. That's not what this thread is about. Its about this so called manual for "shouting down" protesters, not arresting them, not intimidating them, just standing in front of them and shouting while holding up signs.

Retard, first you say that my post had nothing to do with this thread and now you're looking for more. You are one Bi-Polar ass.

Posted by wisgod

I accept your apology.

"and now you're looking for more"

I was the one who made the request for "more". You claimed the ACLU doesn't follow the First Amendment. Certainly you have examples, right?

I agree the primary significance of this story is the ongoing effort to keep Bush insulated from his world. In other words, preserving the precious illusion he knows his ass from a hole in the ground.

In less than an hour we're going to hear Bush demonstrate one more time what an arrogant airhead he is, when he attempts to mitigate what he already knows is bad news from Petraeous.

Isn't it funny? Four years of evading comparisons between Iraq and Nam, Bush has discovered history?

Enjoy. Rumor has it, by the way, that Bush is supported by your tax dollars.

and how am i being dishonest I agree with all your points. It is just a fact that it is a pussy move.

Wisgod, you just got your ass handed to you.

It sucks when someone actually calls you out and makes you back up your dribble doesn't it.

You claimed the ACLU doesn't follow the First Amendment. Certainly you have examples, right?

Posted by Danforth

You mean the part about prohibiting the free exercise of Religion?

It sucks when someone actually calls you out and makes you back up your dribble doesn't it.

Posted by BenFranklinn

No, it sucks when trolls like you chime in.

Bush is a tool. But why wouldn't he be against dissent when people are dissenting against him/his policies?


I think it would be funny if protestors started shouting "USA! USA! USA!" during a Bush speach. Being that he's acted against the interests of this country big time (either accidently or for selfish reasons, its tough to tell), I think it would be an appropriate anti-Bush protest. And it would be funny to see how his confused douche squad would react.

"You mean the part about prohibiting the free exercise of Religion?"

That's a good start...although I have a hunch that your interpretation of "free exercise" means your religion running the government for the benefit of followers of your faith, but I might be wrong.

Protesters have to get in Bush events first.

From everything I've read, they handpick the 'public' at their events so as to weed out anyone not in lock step.

God, what happened to America?

Sully, another great protest would be to silently hold up copies of "The Pentagon Papers". especially after today, I think.

"You mean the part about prohibiting the free exercise of Religion?"

No, the part against establishing a religion, with my tax dollars.

But please, show cases where the ACLU was against the free excercise of religion, and by "free", I mean without the use of my tax dollars.

While Wisgod is an idiot, he has managed to change the subject from Bush squelshing dissent to the ACLU.

The ACLU also fought and got Hannity's job back for him when he was a lowly radio host. You won't hear him admit it though.

"Protesters have to get in Bush events first.

From everything I've read, they handpick the 'public' at their events so as to weed out anyone not in lock step.

God, what happened to America?"

Bush isn't the first, just the most blatant. It was pretty common during the Reagan years as well. In 1984 Reagan had a big public rally in Columbus, OH, supposedly open to the public. A couple of my friends got tickets and went down to OSU for the rally - and were not so politely turned away at the door after they refused to remove the Mondale buttons that they were wearing. Threatened with arrest, even, when they made a bit of a stink about having tickets and the right to see the President speak.

No, the part against establishing a religion, with my tax dollars.

When has our gov't ever even tried such a thing?

DC

Isn't that sad?

Let me get this straight, the Lefties here believe that protesters whose goals are to disrupt the Presidents speech with anti-Bush comments, chants and signs are exercising their first amendment rights, but the counter-protesters who are attempting to use bigger signs and louder chants to prevent the disruption of the President's speech are "fascist" and engaging in illegal acts.

Yeah, that makes sense...not.

#1. The ACLU fufills its agenda using my tax money.
#2. The ACLU supports child porn distribution and child molesters like NAMBLA.
#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy.
#4. The ACLU Opposes National Security.
#5. The ACLU is anti-Christian.
#6. The ACLU advocate open borders.
#7. The ACLU are pro-death. (abortion and euthanasia)
#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts.
#9. The ACLU does not believe in the Second Amendment.
#10 The ACLU was founded by Communist

Posted by wisgod


This CAN'T be serious, can it? Good grief what simple-minded drivel.

Good grief what simple-minded drivel.

Posted by midiman

Simply put in terms you could understand.
You're Welcome.

Simply put in terms you could understand.

Yeah, that must be it.

#7. The ACLU are pro-death. (abortion and euthanasia)

What about George "Fry'em!" Bush, former governor of Texas?

"#3. The ACLU Defend(sic) the enemy."

Rush Limbaugh comes to mind.


idiot

"When has our gov't ever even tried such a thing?"

You're joking, right? Religious displays on public property have never been attempted? What planet are you on?

Eh, faulty link.

Whatever.

but the counter-protesters who are attempting to use bigger signs and louder chants to prevent the disruption of the President's speech are "fascist" and engaging in illegal acts.


It would be one thing if the counter protesters were their for their own sake. I agree, there is no problem there.

When they are planted by the government, however, which is what this story is about, it's a whole different ballgame.

Rush Limbaugh comes to mind.

Posted by Zatoichi

So does the PLO and Quadafi, idiot.

#3. The ACLU Defend the enemy.

Who? Saudi Arabia?
No, wait, the Bush administration defends them.

Religious displays on public property have never been attempted?

And how is that establishing a religion...

You don't want to go down this road, because you will never prove that putting a cross or a menorah or a christmas tree on the lawn of a courthouse is establishing a religion...

Feel free to try though.

Wiz,

Still waiting for your example(s) of where the ACLU fought against the First Amendment.

Still waiting for your example(s) of where the ACLU fought against the First Amendment.

Posted by Danforth


Just out of curiosity what did they have to say about Imus?

#7. The ACLU are pro-death. (abortion and euthanasia)

What about George "Fry'em!" Bush, former governor of Texas?

Posted by ness_gadol

If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU's pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

"And how is that establishing a religion... "

Using my tax dollars to support a belief. And by that I mean any belief, even those which jibe with mine.

You wouldn't want your tax dollars paying for a diorama of Muslims celebrating Ramadan, would you?

Are you a member, Wisgod?

"Just out of curiosity what did they have to say about Imus?"

Regarding the government establishing a religion...nothing.

Still waiting for your example(s) of where the ACLU fought against the First Amendment.

Posted by Danforth

If I bring up the numerous ACLU lawsuits against schools; specifically field trips to historical churches, shrines etc., you will pooh pooh it, because you will claim it involves your tax dollars.

Regarding the government establishing a religion...nothing.

Posted by Danforth

You said the first amendment...

If its abortion or euthanasia, as long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it. The only exception to the ACLU's pro-death stance, is if it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death.

Posted by wisgod

wisgod believes that the government should decide what we can do with our bodies.

#8. Their outright hatred of the Boyscouts.

They don't hate Boy Scouts, they hate the persecution of homosexuals.

Actually, it's simpler than that.

The Boy Scouts of America are (unlike the ACLU) at least partially funded by our tax dollars.

The Boy Scouts of America ALSO has a standing rule against gays (as they are "an abomination" according to the bible) and atheists (as they don't acknowledge a god). This means that the Boy Scouts of America promote a religious belief, however, since they receive tax funding, this is unconstitutional.

"you will never prove that putting a cross or a menorah or a christmas tree on the lawn of a courthouse is establishing a religion... "

Bullshit. It's using my tax dollars to support a religious belief, and one not shared by all the citizenry, yet you're demanding all the citizenry pay for it. If it's in a context of lawgivers, as it is in some displays, fine, but if it's a religious icon on its own and you want tax dollars to erect or maintain it, or you want to do it on government/public property, the ACLU says no, and rightfully so.

You wouldn't want your tax dollars paying for a diorama of Muslims celebrating Ramadan, would you?


If it were in like deer borne michigan or detroit or some other heavily muslim populated area, no I wouldn't have a problem with it... or if it went up side by side with a cross and a star of david I wouldn't have a problem with that either.

A display on a courthouse lawn or on public property is not the establishment of a state religion.

Anyone who makes a big stink about something like that is just an attention whore whose parents didn't hug them enough... or in some cases hugged them too much.

"If I bring up the numerous ACLU lawsuits against schools; specifically field trips to historical churches, shrines etc., you will pooh pooh it, because you will claim it involves your tax dollars."

That's right. It involves my tax dollars. Now please find an ACLU case where they fought against the free excercise of religion when it doesn't involve public financing of one kind or another.

A display on a courthouse lawn or on public property is not the establishment of a state religion.

No, but it is a government endorsment of a religion, which is unconstitutional

Anyone who makes a big stink about something like that is just an attention whore whose parents didn't hug them enough... or in some cases hugged them too much.

And here I thought we had a pretty good mutual respect thing going on, Rob. It might interest you to know that I am a member of the ACLU, and I agree with most of the cases they take on, especially in their defence of church/state seperation.

"A display on a courthouse lawn or on public property is not the establishment of a state religion."

You're free to disagree with the Constitution all you want. Just as you're free to lead the charge to erect a cross on your courthouse steps.

Bullshit. It's using my tax dollars to support a religious belief, and one not shared by all the citizenry, yet you're demanding all the citizenry pay for it.
Posted by Danforth

Hell Danforth, they are going after Chrismas Trees on Public property for Christ sake.

It's using my tax dollars to support a religious belief

No, it really isn't. Its just a display... nobody is forced to practice Christianity because a cross goes up on public property... the United States is not a Jewish state because a menorah goes up on a court house lawn at Chanukah...

Nobody is forced to recognize there is a God everytime they use American Currency or say the pledge of allegiance.

If you honestly care about the $0.00000000001 of your tax dollars that MAY go to putting up a cross/star of david then you're just an attention whore... and most of the time this is done by the local populations and supported by them and its always some outcast liberal douche that shows up to cry about it.

"designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route."

Nothing must shatter Georgie's illusion that he is loved so the audiences are handpicked and prescreened, even the military on his infamous plastic turkey photo op in Iraq at Thanksgiving 2003. If somebody does slip through wearing the wrong kind of T-shirt, for instance, the rally squads move in to block them and shout them down, if that doesn't work they get handcuffed, arrested and hauled off.

All this is well documented, even to having a manual designated "Sensitive -- Do Not Copy" with extensive instructions in the art of "deterring potential protestors". Using "enhanced deterrogation techniques", no doubt.

"If it were in like deer borne michigan or detroit or some other heavily muslim populated area, no I wouldn't have a problem with it..."

Oh, I get it...your interpretation of rights is based on numbers, and minorities have no say. You would have no problem with the state establishing a religion, as long as it caters to the local majority. That explains a lot.

That's right. It involves my tax dollars.
Posted by Danforth

Who do you think is picking up the tab when they sue the Federal or State run agencies or properties? Can you say "Tax Dollars"?

nobody is forced to practice Christianity because a cross goes up on public property

And no child is forced to become gay because a teacher reads a book in class, but people sure do like to raise all sorts of hell about that one.

"If it were in like deer borne michigan or detroit or some other heavily muslim populated area, no I wouldn't have a problem with it..."

So, what if it was done in your town?

"they are going after Chrismas Trees on Public property for Christ sake"

As well they should. Put it up on all the private property you want, but the minute you want to put it on public property, that's where the line is drawn. And the rules are clear: it doesn't matter if 99% of the beliefs are in agreement, when it comes to public property or tax dollars, NO religion should get a penny.

I should probably restate these "popular" beliefs are also mine. But I have to ask myself, if I were in the minority, would I want my tax dollars to go for Ramadan displays? Since I would answer "no" if my faith were in the minority, I have to also answer "no" when my faith is in the majority.

It might interest you to know that I am a member of the ACLU, and I agree with most of the cases they take on, especially in their defence of church/state seperation.

Just out of curiosity, what have you disagreed with.

If you honestly care about the $0.00000000001 of your tax dollars that MAY go to putting up a cross/star of david then you're just an attention whore... and most of the time this is done by the local populations and supported by them and its always some outcast liberal douche that shows up to cry about it.

WRONG!!!


Sorry, Rob, but the majority of the church/state cases involving the ACLU were brought by one religious group who felt whatever display or issue was showing a government endorsment of a religion that WASN'T THEIRS. Very rarely (though it does happen) is a case brought to the ACLU by an atheist, or "outcast liberal douche" as you so put it.

"deer borne michigan(sic)"

Must be strong deer.

"Who do you think is picking up the tab when they sue the Federal or State run agencies or properties?"

Moot point. If they hadn't violated the law in the first place, they wouldn't be "picking up the tab" for their idiocy. All the more reason to educate these religious numbnutzes.

It might interest you to know that I am a member of the ACLU, and I agree with most of the cases they take on, especially in their defence of church/state seperation.

Just out of curiosity, what have you disagreed with.

Eb, I'm a fairly even-handed guy. I'm alright with privately-funded religious displays on public land as long as room is allowed for displays from other religions and/or atheist displays. While I can't remember the specifics of the case right now, I seem to recall the ACLU taking a case against a city where the city was doing just that.

So, what if it was done in your town?

Posted by RastaCyborg


If it were done in my town, then it would have to be in conjuction with other religious items as I said the second part of my post... the part you and danforth left off because you are dishonest little attention seeking bitches...

Since my town is not heavily Muslim it would not be supported by the majority of the population, but an all inclusive display would be and that would be fine.

Very rarely (though it does happen) is a case brought to the ACLU by an atheist, or "outcast liberal douche" as you so put it.

Posted by RevDarko


Well there is that douche who wanted God taken out of the Pledge, and then taken off our money.

And then there was the case of the picture of Jesus in the small louisiana town courthouse that had been hanging for years until some douche decided he needed attention.

but the minute you want to put it on public property, that's where the line is drawn.

... By liberal pussies, who were either spoiled as children or neglected as children.

Oh, and for appropriate disclosure, as a patriotic constitution defending American, I carry the ACLU card.

OK, I don't know how this thread ended up here, but I will put in my two cents.

I have said this many times, the establishment clause prohibits laws "respecting an establishment of religion." Thus, a state cannot require any form of religious observance, advance any religion over another, or advance religion over non-religion.

The free exercise clause forbids the enactment of laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. A law that directly and facially interferes with the free exercise of religion will be held unconstitutional.

"deer borne michigan(sic)"

Must be strong deer.

Posted by Zatoichi


People who correct spelling should have to wash the crotches of fat Renaissance festival workers...

No, Rob, these are cases where someone was bringing a violation of the constitution to the attnetion of the courts. Pretty simple, really.

The fact that the "God" references in the pledge and on money were changes to these things which were deliberately made to identify us as different from the "Godless communists" means they are an endorsement of theistic religions over non-theistic ones. It is a violation the constitution, plain and simple.

How does it actually hurt you Rev? Are you forced to say a prayer everytime you buy your groceries? I want to know how this type of infraction actually damages you in some way, like how people back before the Bill Of Rights were hurt because they didn't have the same beliefs as the church of England.

Anyone feel free to chime in here... How are YOU like the oppressed people of England who couldn't practice their beliefs, because the one dollar bill says, "In God We Trust," or because a small backwater town in Mississippi that you will never go to in your life put up a Nativity Scene on a courthouse lawn.

I don't understand why the religious crowd doesn't support the separation of church and state.

I most certainly do! I don't think we should have a state religion, I hate that the right panders so hard to Evangelical Christians, and I would opppose any talk of creating a National Religion because it is a clear violation.

However what no liberal has ever shown, is why a cross on a hill in Wyoming, or a granite stone at a courthouse in Alabama is erasing that line...

And no conservative has ever shown why my tax dollars should pay for your cross on a hill in Wyoming, or Ten Commandments in a courthouse in Alabama.

Rob,

The use of the phrase "In God we trust" is a violation of my rights as a person who practises a non-theistic religion. I do not acknowledge a god of any kind (as is my right in this country) and the use of the collective "we" is, essentially, forcing the belief of a divine entity on me.

(Bear in mind, I have no problem with this particular thing on my money, HOWEVER, I could be arrested for removing it, which I DO have a problme with.)

As for the pledge, that is requiring me to take an oath to a god my religion doesn't believe in, therefore, it do find it to be a far more blatant violation of my rights.

"However what no liberal has ever shown, is why a cross on a hill in Wyoming, or a granite stone at a courthouse in Alabama is erasing that line..."

Public ... ie., government... sponsorship and implicit endorsement of a particular religious tradition is the problem. I'm amazed you can't see that. If the government is paying for it, it's supporting it. Your implied definition of the establishment clause is incredibly narrow.

Just like the topic at hand...it's not "counter protestors" exercising their right to free speech. It's government sponsored suppression of dissent.

But which is it, Rob? One post you say it's only okay if it's in a multitude of displays, the next you're defending the Ten Commandments displayed by itself.

Obviously the Ten Commandments were there solo. Do you now repudiate Roy Moore, since he was clearly seeking to promote the Ten Commandments over everything else?

I can see getting pissy about wiretaps, because at least then there is a chance, a very miniscule one, but still a chance someone could be looking into your activities without a warrant. I can see getting pissy about two people being arrested at a protest, or a journalist being arrested because it starts to kill dissent. I can see being upset about Diebold machines because it may lead to you not having your vote counted...

But in no way, shape or form does a cross on a hill in southern california, or a nativity scene in upstate new york or a star of david in miami florida end up with you losing your right to religious practice... It never ends up there, so I can't for the life of me understand why you guys get so pissy about an object that is meaningless to you in some place you will never see.

How are YOU like the oppressed people of England who couldn't practice their beliefs, because the one dollar bill says, "In God We Trust," or because a small backwater town in Mississippi that you will never go to in your life put up a Nativity Scene on a courthouse lawn.


I missed this the first time reading through your post.

Your question is moot. I don't, personally, care about some backwater town in Mississippi and their nativity, but it violates the Constitution, therefore, it's illegal.

To analogize, your question is as silly as asking this:

Why do you care if Geoffery Dahmer murdered a bunch of people in Milwaukee? You didn't know any of them. How did it hurt you, personaly?

One post you say it's only okay if it's in a multitude of displays, the next you're defending the Ten Commandments displayed by itself.

Obviously the Ten Commandments were there solo. Do you now repudiate Roy Moore, since he was clearly seeking to promote the Ten Commandments over everything else?

Posted by Danforth


Which religion was he promoting?

"As for the pledge, that is requiring me to take an oath to a god my religion doesn't believe in, therefore, it do find it to be a far more blatant violation of my rights."

The "under God" part was added in the 1950's during the McCarthy era. I have no problem with the pledge and support what it says, but I do have a problem with it being used as a rote device in children. It should mean something when you pledge allegiance to your country, not just be something that you repeat with everyone else, partly in fear that you'll be (at least) looked at as odd if you decline to participate.

Why do you care if Geoffery Dahmer murdered a bunch of people in Milwaukee? You didn't know any of them. How did it hurt you, personaly?

Posted by RevDarko

Because if he isn't prosecuted for his crimes more murderers could come out now that they know they won't be punished and eventually that could lead to my death or someone's that I know.

In no way shape of form does a cross on a hill in some distant town, or fuck even right next door lead to you being forced to become a Christian.

But in no way, shape or form does a cross on a hill in southern california, or a nativity scene in upstate new york or a star of david in miami florida end up with you losing your right to religious practice... It never ends up there, so I can't for the life of me understand why you guys get so pissy about an object that is meaningless to you in some place you will never see.

There's TWO parts to the establishment clause, Rob. The government can't restrict your religious belifs, but it also can't ENDORSE a religion, even if it doesn't restrict your religious beliefs in the process.

Which religion was he promoting?

Considering he was displaying the Souther Baptist version of the commandments (different than, say, the Catholic version), he was promoting Southern Baptist beliefs.

but it also can't ENDORSE a religion, even if it doesn't restrict your religious beliefs in the process.

Posted by RevDarko


How is it endorsing a religion, just to allow a cross to be put up or a nativity scene or a menorah?

Considering he was displaying the Souther Baptist version of the commandments (different than, say, the Catholic version), he was promoting Southern Baptist beliefs.

Posted by RevDarko


Could a Jew look at those ten commandments and think it has to do with Judaism as well?

"Because if he isn't prosecuted for his crimes more murderers could come out now that they know they won't be punished and eventually that could lead to my death or someone's that I know."

OK, good point Rob. This is exactly why we have to be vigilant in protecting our Constitution. Sure, it isn't that big of a deal if some east outer nowhere village down south puts up a nativity scene. But your slippery slope argument for murderers applies to government as well. Once the horse is out of the barn on religious endorsements (which it already is, frankly), then pretty soon we have a de facto state religion. In fact, a lot of the civil rights cases in this venue have been efforts to reverse the problem and restore the constitutional protections afforded all of us.

" being forced to become a Christian."

Of course, that's not the point. Using my tax dollars to further a religious belief, any religious belief, even the one I believe, is the issue, and it's wrong.

No one is objecting to Crosses, or Stars of David, or Wiccan symbols on private property. No one is stopping you from erecting that Buddhist shrine or the Virgin Mary on the Half-Tub on your front lawn if you so choose. But the line is drawn when it's the public's money and/or the public's property. Why is that so hard to fathom?

"People who correct spelling should have to wash the crotches of fat Renaissance festival workers..."

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Go fuck yourself, shit-for-brains.

People who are stupid and illiterate, like you, should be made fun of in public.

How is it endorsing a religion, just to allow a cross to be put up or a nativity scene or a menorah?

If it is government land and paid for by the governmetn, then the government is implicitly endorsing the religion those symbols are used for.

Really, I'm surprised you don't get it, since you seem to have no problem claiming the New York Times, in publishing the government's wire-tap program (unconstitutional, mind you) was thereby endorsing the enemy.

"How is it endorsing a religion, just to allow a cross to be put up or a nativity scene or a menorah?"

PAYING FOR IT IS AN ENDORSEMENT!

Could a Jew look at those ten commandments and think it has to do with Judaism as well?

Well, according to a rabbi friend of mine, no. The Jewish version of the decalogue is, apparently, COMPLETELY different.

Once the horse is out of the barn on religious endorsements (which it already is, frankly), then pretty soon we have a de facto state religion

But since you say it is out already, do we have a state religion? NO!

If anyone can show me how saying, "One nation under GOD" or "In God We Trust" makes someone a Christian, I'll get right on the marching line with you guys, but right now from where I'm standing your like the neighbor not invited to the big party who has to call in the noise complaint to the police... if you're unhappy then everyone has to be.

"How is it endorsing a religion, just to allow a cross to be put up or a nativity scene or a menorah?"

It's not, on private property with private funds. But as soon as my tax dollars get involved, that's the government, and as soon as they pay a dime, that's endorsing.

"People who correct spelling should have to wash the crotches of fat Renaissance festival workers..."

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

Go fuck yourself, shit-for-brains.

People who are stupid and illiterate, like you, should be made fun of in public.

Posted by Zatoichi

I would rather pelt them with rotten veggies and fruit and beat them with soap in a sock.

Really, I'm surprised you don't get it, since you seem to have no problem claiming the New York Times, in publishing the government's wire-tap program (unconstitutional, mind you) was thereby endorsing the enemy.

Posted by RevDarko


Informing our enemy of a valuable program at least has an actual effect on the people of this country, something that put us all in danger.

A cross on a hill in West Bumblefuck, Vermont is of not threat to you or your rights.

But the line is drawn when it's the public's money and/or the public's property. Why is that so hard to fathom?

Posted by Danforth

If I donate a Christmas tree or Nativity scene, along with installation on the public square, and keep it maintained at no tax payer expense, are you OK with it?

But in no way, shape or form does a cross on a hill in southern california, or a nativity scene in upstate new york or a star of david in miami florida end up with you losing your right to religious practice...

Rob, here's my take on it. At the base level, I don't care. You're absolutely right. Walking past a Star of David or a Crescent doesn't force me to be Jewish or Muslim.

But the problem is, if you allow one belief, you have to allow them all, and people think up some pretty wierd shit.

Who wants to see their town square turned into a flea market, because to put up a Christmas tree, they also had to allow 38 different religious displays.
Personally I don't want to see a statue of an earth goddess next to a display from the church of vampire worshipers, next to a pentagram, next to....

And who wants school to start out with a Christian prayer on Monday, then a Jewish prayer on Tuesday, then a Muslim prayer on Wed, Budist on Thurs, and the tree-hugging earth goddess prayer on Fri.

It just becomes clutter and noise, and it all becomes cheap advertising that looses all meaning.

Go fuck yourself, shit-for-brains.

People who are stupid and illiterate, like you, should be made fun of in public.

Posted by Zatoichi


Awww... what's the matter sweetie? A little fussy since you got pointed out as the phonics douche of the Retort? Well stop thinking your so intellectually superior cuz you can point out typos and maybe I'll leave you alone.

But in no way, shape or form does a cross on a hill in southern california, or a nativity scene in upstate new york or a star of david in miami florida end up with you losing your right to religious practice... It never ends up there, so I can't for the life of me understand why you guys get so pissy about an object that is meaningless to you in some place you will never see.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

If its so meaningless than what if I douse the cross with gas and light it up..would it be meaningless then?

What about torching the 'Merican flag?

The Establishment Clause - the 10 most tortured words in US history.


If we look back through history it is apparent that, in modern times, this clause is more broadly applied than originally intended.


The whole tax dollar thing is specious. Taking the next logical step would be to revoke ALL churches' non-profit status - essentially exempting churches from paying taxes is no different than having churches receive tax dollars.


"Congress shall make no law..."


The word "law" is very important to the clause. Placing a nativity in the park is not making law establishing religion.

But the problem is, if you allow one belief, you have to allow them all, and people think up some pretty wierd shit.


I have no problem allowing Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc... to put up displays during their holidays. I have no problem with that.

For the record I don't think there should be prayer in public schools, but if students want to form after school clubs and pray in an empty classroom I have no problem with that. Just not during school hours, and not performed by a teacher or administrator, because that opens up the door to ridiculing or outcasting students who don't believe or just don't want to participate.

"If I donate a Christmas tree or Nativity scene, along with installation on the public square, and keep it maintained at no tax payer expense, are you OK with it?"

No. Government endorsement of religion should not be for sale. Would you be okay with any religious display being put on public property, just because someone could afford it? Say, should a really wealthy Asian be able to erect a giant Buddha in your Town Square, just because he can pay for it?

btw rob.. symbols are a physical representation of an ethereal belief or faith thus hold significant importance despite the black and white observation that they are merely carbon based objects with no relevance.

I personally don't give a shit about any symbol, but unfortunately the unwashed mob does and will fight and die for their idiotic belief in an inanimate object with no function or power.

If its so meaningless than what if I douse the cross with gas and light it up..would it be meaningless then?

What about torching the 'Merican flag?



Posted by Legio


Go right the fuck ahead, provided they belong to you or someone who is allowing you to do it. Don't go to someone's house and light the flag hanging from their door or burn down a church. As long as you own it, you do what ever the fuck you want with it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

"If I donate a Christmas tree or Nativity scene, along with installation on the public square, and keep it maintained at no tax payer expense, are you OK with it?"

No.

Posted by Danforth


Rest my case... fucking attention whore.

Bob Barr is a member of the ACLU. It was his personal quest to impeach Bill Clinton. Seems like some of you would love this organization.

What about torching the 'Merican flag?

PLease comply with city ordinances regarding fires.

symbols are a physical representation of an ethereal belief or faith thus hold significant importance despite the black and white observation that they are merely carbon based objects with no relevance.


Only to those who subscribe to the beliefs. A crucifix holds special significance to me, but not to my Jewish wife... to her it is nothing of significance, and the 2 we have hanging in our home mean nothing to her, same with the Mezuzah's nailed to the doorways to me.

Bob Barr is a member of the ACLU. It was his personal quest to impeach Bill Clinton. Seems like some of you would love this organization.

Posted by leonland


Was it the personal quest of the ACLU to impeach Bill Clinton?

Was it the personal quest of the ACLU to impeach Bill Clinton?

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

After they found out he moaned "OH God Monica" in the Oval Office.

Ok Rob so you are saying don't judge a whole group by the actions of a few?

So that means everyone who opposes the war is not a traitor?

John Kerry voters were not necessarily cozying up the enemy?

Democrats don't all hate America?

Protestors aren't all "commies"?

People who oppose the Patriot Act aren't on Bin Ladin's side?

Are those fair statements?

And let me beat you to your "clever" response.

No, most republicans aren't racist.
Most conservatives are not stupid
Fascism = Republican as much as communism = democrat.
republicans aren't scared of mexicans.

etc, etc,etc

Leon,

No, most republicans aren't racist.
Most conservatives are not stupid
Fascism = Republican as much as communism = democrat.
republicans aren't scared of mexicans.


That's an easy way to invoke a brow-beating by some of the kooks on this site.

Rob...you purposely avoided the rest of my post. I think you're afraid to answer the question: are you okay with a huge Buddhist shrine being erected in your town square, and on any other piece of public property as well, as long as it doesn't cost you anything?

Danforth,

Your question is a non-sequitur to the point of contention: Do these religious symbols on public property violate the Constitution?

They don't.

Stating that these symbols aren't unconstitutional is not the same thing as saying that they are desirable.


The issue you are speaking to involves local ordinances, not Constitutionality.

Rob...you purposely avoided the rest of my post. I think you're afraid to answer the question: are you okay with a huge Buddhist shrine being erected in your town square, and on any other piece of public property as well, as long as it doesn't cost you anything?

Posted by Danforth

I was the one who posted it....and if it coincided with a Holiday, not a problem for me. A Christmas tree or Nativity Scene is a representation of a Catholic Holiday, not a happy holiday.

amazing how the righties diverted the blog from bush being a pussy.

"Do these religious symbols on public property violate the Constitution? They don't."

They do. As soon as they use a penny of public tax dollars.

"...and if it coincided with a Holiday, not a problem for me."

What, now there's a time limit?

So, say, the decade-long celebration of Mohammed should allow for a Muslim diorama up for ten years as long as a Saudi is paying?

"Do these religious symbols on public property violate the Constitution? They don't."

Symbols on public property but paid for by private entities are, in my opinion, in a gray area. I could see arguments both ways on that one; it would be "more OK" with me if the private entity leased the spot from the municipality. I would tend to lean to a more pure position that they shouldn't mix secular and sacred at all though.

Jeff...local ordinances have to be constitutional...

Danforth,


They do. As soon as they use a penny of public tax dollars.


I disagree.

It's no difference than funding the arts via tax dollars.

You fail to address the points I've made regarding the 10 words being a complete sentence - putting a nativity in a park is not making law.

You also have failed to address how, if your interpretation is correct, giving churches tax-exempt status is unconstitutional.




DC,


Agreed regarding ordinances.

amazing how the righties diverted the blog from bush being a pussy.

Posted by truthhurts

Yeah, it really throws people like you off track if it isn't about Bush and you can't regurgitate your KOS talking points, right?

"It's no difference than funding the arts via tax dollars."

Where does the Constitution prohibit establishing art?

"same with the Mezuzah's nailed to the doorways to me."

No big deal to me but don't Christians also accept that Jesus was a Jew and that Christianity grew out of Judaism not in opposition to it. Thus Jewish symbols should be meaningful to Christians while Christian symbols are not probably meaningful to Jews.

Go right the fuck ahead, provided they belong to you or someone who is allowing you to do it. Don't go to someone's house and light the flag hanging from their door or burn down a church. As long as you own it, you do what ever the fuck you want with it.

Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

fair enough.

are you okay with a huge Buddhist shrine being erected in your town square, and on any other piece of public property as well, as long as it doesn't cost you anything?

Posted by Danforth


If it coincided with a national holiday, no not even slightly.

Your saying huge, so huge could mean eyesoar, and I wouldn't like that cuz it could hurt property values, but you know what, from what I've seen of Buddhist temples and gardens and such they are very peaceful and relaxing and something like that if done nicely could acutally be pretty cool to have around.

Add onto it that I don't have to pay for it and giddyup!

Thus Jewish symbols should be meaningful to Christians

Nah, the Jews killed Jesus, remember?

"how, if your interpretation is correct, giving churches tax-exempt status is unconstitutional."

The tax law allows all religions equal opportunity at achieving the same tax status. No one religion is favored over another. Using my tax dollars to erect a Ramadan scene on public property, however, is different. It favors one belief over others, and I don't want my tax dollars going for Muslim displays on government property.

No big deal to me but don't Christians also accept that Jesus was a Jew and that Christianity grew out of Judaism not in opposition to it. Thus Jewish symbols should be meaningful to Christians while Christian symbols are not probably meaningful to Jews.

Posted by danni


Your right Danni in that they do hold a historical significance to me and even something a little more special to me in thinking that Jesus would have had all these items, but just having these items around doesn't make me think, "I better go see a rabbi now."

PS did you know if you do want to convert to judaism, but you are already circumsised you still have to have a guy cut your cock... its small, nothing drastic, but blood has to be drawn... Crazy shit.

"It's no difference than funding the arts via tax dollars."

BIG difference. One is supporting a particular belief system. The other is more thought of along the lines of education or beautification projects (although we might differ on whether some art beautifies the scene or not). Might be a waste of funds or not but it's not the same as supporting / endorsing a religious institution.

"putting a nativity in a park is not making law."

I disagree, setting aside for the moment your interpretation being overly narrow in my view. Making an ordinance permitting such a display at public expense is clearly making a law respecting an religious institution. Having an ordinance that does not prohibit said practice could also reasonably be argued is making a law along those lines as well as it's permitting public funds for religious practice (which the placement of a religious display is, in fact).

"You also have failed to address how, if your interpretation is correct, giving churches tax-exempt status is unconstitutional."

I think it is unconstitutional. I do think that it would be OK if it qualifies as a legitimate 501(c)(3) or is doing legitimate charitable work (not proseltyzing). I think there should be some differentiation.

---

Keep in mind I've had a lot of exposure to this stuff as a former ministerial student in a conservative evangelical church. Used to argue with those guys a lot about this. Christian dominionists, most of them.

fair enough.

Posted by Legio


That's always been my problem with the "You can't burn the flag," argument. I own the the American Flag I have. Its not government property. If I want to burn my property then I should be allowed to... now if its being burnt in an area prohibiting open flames, then that's different, but you shouldn't be allowed to keep me from doing anything with my personal property.

DC says,

"putting a nativity in a park is not making law."

I disagree, setting aside for the moment your interpretation being overly narrow in my view. Making an ordinance permitting such a display at public expense is clearly making a law respecting an religious institution. Having an ordinance that does not prohibit said practice could also reasonably be argued is making a law along those lines as well as it's permitting public funds for religious practice (which the placement of a religious display is, in fact).


That's a pretty solid counter.


Bear in mind I take a narrower view of the establishment clause than you, so I disagree with what I've bolded. Nevertheless, I now better see the premise under which you are arguing.

I'm seeing a whole side of Rob that I never knew existed. I think all the betwetting pussy fag liberals on this site are starting to rub off on him.

Or, it could be that he is running to the center to help out his failed logic.

Danforth says:

"how, if your interpretation is correct, giving churches tax-exempt status is unconstitutional."

The tax law allows all religions equal opportunity at achieving the same tax status. No one religion is favored over another. Using my tax dollars to erect a Ramadan scene on public property, however, is different. It favors one belief over others, and I don't want my tax dollars going for Muslim displays on government property.



So, you aren't arguing that a religious display violates the Establishment clause - you are arguing that it violates the Equal Opportunity clause?

That's an interesting twist as well.

I see nothing wrong with having specified days when "the public" can put up religious artifacts on public property. Not funded by the gov, anyone can put up anything promoting their religion. This may get old when the satanists start advertising though.

Also, the prayers said before school events should be followed by anyone else wanting to say prayers for another religion. This may get old when the sex goddess spouts orgasm after orgasm over the loud speaker.

JeffJ,

Actually, I believe it violates the Establishment Clause, and they shouldn't get full tax-exempt status. I agree with DC, if they could separate proselytizing from charity/operations costs, I could see the tax breaks for those activities. Still, Unions have to report chargeable and non-chargeable expenses (and proselytizing is out), why shouldn't churches?

Having an ordinance that does not prohibit said practice could also reasonably be argued is making a law...

What a crock of specious shit.

It could be "reasonably" argued in Mexico, maybe.

Our laws our based on English common law and Natural Law---not the Napoleonic Code.

NOT promulgating an ordinance prohibiting a certain activity cannot be "reasonably" argued as "making a law".

It's amazing the lengths you people will go to to shove your shit-ass, hyper-secular interpretation of the civic process down the throat of common sense.

Pinche's out, right on time...

"NOT promulgating an ordinance prohibiting a certain activity cannot be "reasonably" argued as "making a law"."

By "Not promulgating an ordinance" I mean "permitting the government to do something" that isn't specificly codified. I think it's perfectly a reasonable argument that the government's activity violates the establishment clause because the activity in question is, in fact, unconstitutional. Let's say that a town or a state did not have a law prohibiting racial discrimination in hiring for the government. The government couldn't win on the basis of there being no law -- because the act would be a violation of federal law. Same principle.

Points regarding basis of our law (with the notable exception of Louisiana once upon a time) are true but irrelevant.

As for the comment regarding "hyper-secular" (stated while cussing up a storm that would offend most any nearby church lady)...

Our government IS secular. Not partly secular. It is. Jesus even supports the idea, from what I read of him..."render unto Caeser" and all that stuff. He also didn't seem to like it when business/goverment/etc mixed itself up in religious affairs, either.

And to topic...

I'm pretty confident he didn't take much liking to government sponsored suppression of dissent.

"It's amazing the lengths you people will go to to shove your shit-ass, bla, bla interpretation of the civic process down the throat of common sense."


YEAH!

No Kidding! meow

We are supposed to believe the rhetoric that Bush will keep us safe from terrorist but at the same time deny the facts that his actions here at home illustrates he is afraid to face fellow unarmed Americans who simply disagree with him!

Meow

Probably good crowd control, but typical of the propagandaistic tendencies of the administration. There should be a dicslosure warning before any televised event with W -- "Warning: The enthusiasm you hear has been staged and is no in way a reflection of the actual sample population being portrayed. Any semblance to sentiments, real or imagined, is coincidence."

Top hot buttons:

1. Public events open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers.

2. Discouraging even non-verbal opposition viewpoints.

3. Expensive advance teams that stage events at great (Public?) expense (who pays for those teams and their props?).

Best line in the article -- "advance staff should 'decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone.' The West Virginia organizers might have missed that."

By "Not promulgating an ordinance" I mean "permitting the government to do something" that isn't specificly codified.

A citizens group placing a nativity scene in a public park has nothing to do with "permitting" the government to do anything.

I think it's perfectly a reasonable argument that the government's activity violates the establishment clause because the activity in question is, in fact, unconstitutional.

It's not unconstitutional unless the the Congress is making a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

In the case of the nativity scene placed in the town square, Congress (or anyone else, for that matter) has----you guessed it-----made no law respecting the establishment of a religion.

Unless you choose to pretend as if a lack of codification prohibiting a certain activity implies a law respecting the establishment of said activity.

Let's say that a town or a state did not have a law prohibiting racial discrimination in hiring for the government.

Okay, let's do.

The government couldn't win on the basis of there being no law -- because the act would be a violation of federal law.

That made about as much sense as two men fucking---insofar as the concept you're trying to illustrate.

Our government IS secular.

I never said it wasn't.

Not partly secular.

Well, yeah its "partly" secular ---unless you've whited-out that silly fairy-tale about certain inalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

He also didn't seem to like it when business/goverment/etc mixed itself up in religious affairs, either.

That's why I imagine he gets pretty pissed at assholes who advocate those who work tirelessly to force the government to ban expressions of religiosity in any nook or cranny that can even remotely be described as being in the "public" sphere.

I live in the area. I know several people that were there. They weren't allowed anywhere near him but were kept blocks away. Go figure... again, it's funny how this stuff works.

Just for your info. I also personally know the person that drove the truck Al Gore stood on while campaigning for the 2000 election in Springfield. Same deal different politician.

Time to grow up. Most people aren't nearly as partisan as most of you here seem to think.

Posted by Incubus_Con at 2007-08-22 09:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Since when did Obama become leader of the free world?

Exactly. Your point is shit, as usual.

but you had to make your idiotic comment because that's all you have.

Posted by RastaCyborg

And you responed to all ten items, Commrade Dipshit.

Posted by wisgod at 2007-08-22 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag:


So, you admit your comments were retarded?

Finally.

What's the big deal here? Are they using violence to stop the protesters? Are the protesters prevented from getting their message out? As soon as they are prevented from speaking freely let me know, then we have an issue.

Posted by taxman at 2007-08-22 09:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Loyalty oath's to hear the President??

This man-boy is not just the president of those who voted for him. Unfortunately, he's the president of ALL AMERICANS.

Why the fuck should ANYONE have to take an oath to hear their president speak??

Wow, they settled the lawsuit for 80 grand. Wonder how much I'll get when I show up to one of Hillarys events with a shirt that says Hillary sucks and picture of a donkey dick?

surely that's worth twice as much.

Posted by Incubus_Con at 2007-08-22 10:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Succubus Hack,

At least you'll be able to get in to hear what she has to say.....no loyalty oath required.

Do not Copy/ Sensitive

No shit.

Even Fat Tony is afraid to speak of it aloud.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that he could not discuss the manual because it is an issue in two other lawsuits.

Roaming bands of marauding Rally Squads chanting USA USA?

WTF is up with that?!

Oh Right, Spud keeps fergetting Bush isn't just a fascist he's also an ex-cheerleader.

Rah Rah till yer Raw sez Dumbya.

Spud's not cheering.

Be Well.

While this manual is pretty despicable it is an improvement over the old manual they used at Kent State-

HOW TO SHOOT DOWN PROTESTERS

Rob,

The use of the phrase "In God we trust" is a violation of my rights as a person who practises a non-theistic religion. I do not acknowledge a god of any kind (as is my right in this country) and the use of the collective "we" is, essentially, forcing the belief of a divine entity on me.

(Bear in mind, I have no problem with this particular thing on my money, HOWEVER, I could be arrested for removing it, which I DO have a problme with.)

Posted by RevDarko at 2007-08-22 11:31 AM

In my normal spirit of helpfulness and caring....Rev I can help. Send me the money (that will in a sense remove it from you) and we can all be happy. Thanks....RIDE_ON

Wisegod, great post.

I have no first amendment problems with allowing only ticket holders, screening for protest signs, and having shouting down sections. The whole idea is for the President to speak so that people can hear his beliefs and opinions on issues.

If a protestor wishes to protest, they can do so in the general area just not disturbing the President. I would say that if the President was a Democrat or Republican. The usual wackjobs don't just wear t-shirts with messages, they act an ass and disrupt the event so they can make the evening news.

This President is such a piece of shit!!! We need a good Democrat President. One that was much more powerful on his watch.....like a Democrat President to put those pesky Japanese Americans put in internment camps. Where is the greatness of the Democratic Party (FDR when you need him)?

Protesters are just bitchy narcissists.

I care!

Im involved !

Look at me !!!

We live in a democracy you assholes!!...vote them out.. if you cant, tough shit! Move to Vancouver

Corky wrote:

"I have personally witnessed Rethugs intimidating voters and polling officials here in Florida, then being given rewards and jobs in the admin for their brownshirt activites."

You are a liar, there has never been an instance of that or there would have been investigations. You are only trying to back up your crazy left wing conspiousy theories. Get over it, Gore lost Florida.

""You are a liar""

With the credibility of SICKOFLIBS that accusation means absolutely nothing. The intimidation of Florida voters has been documented over and over.
The behavior of the Young Republicans down at the Dade County Supervisor of Elections was just plain thuggish and that was recorded by TV reporters.
SICKOFLIBS could watch them steal the votes and would still deny it becuase SICKOFLIBS is a partisan hack.

Lefties are the ones who have abandoned rational discourse. If I listen to a political show, I'll hear the leftie trying to outshout the righty, and deny him the opportunity to present his message. Mr. Geraldo Rivera is a case in point on the immigration issue.

Lefties abhor the forum of ideas and seek to disrupt meetings. That's why countertactics are necessary in furtherance of civilized discourse.

Bumper sticker sloganeering is the bailiwick of the left, which is not amenable to a process which includes reasoned discussion.

The left at colleges, physically attacks speakers with whom it disagrees, or else heckles and drowns out their attempts to communicate.

Quite naturally, countertactics are necessary to combat this de facto challenge to the right of assembly and free speech.

The court system is packed with leftist judges left over from the years that the left dominated judicial appointments. These ideologues support the leftists who seek to disrupt and intimidate free speech.

The left adopts disruptive tactics to prevent free assembly and then has the unmitigated gall to try to convolute interdiction of its attempts to thwart communication, trying to represent it as if their intended victims were preventing the own free expression of the lefites as if disruption were privileged. These are not their forums. Someone else has a message. Disruption is NOT a right.

The lefties are familiar with disruptive communist tactics from their predecessors during the 30's. One of these is the use of the double diamond formation, seating its supporters in this configuration, which makes it seems as if clapping or other noise is echoing throught the venue of a closed auditorium. Another is ... Well, enough tactical information communicated to the left for one day.

Disruption of attempts of other to communicate is trespass and not "free speech."