I like this guy! - Page 2

FileNotFound · 12-03-2003, 01:18 PM

Oddly enough. Very little it seems.

The difference was that somebody complained to SS about it.

SS didn't go out looking for people with posters.

It's very likley that somebody just wanted to mess with the girl and filed a completly overblown tip about the girl.

There aren't exactly many cases of things like these happeneing.

When SS gets tips that appear totaly overblown they still need to check them out just because they can't risk ignoring it. What if it's true? It's easier to check it out...

Kitsune · 12-03-2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FileNotFound
When SS gets tips that appear totaly overblown they still need to check them out just because they can't risk ignoring it. What if it's true? It's easier to check it out...

Very true. This is why I'm pleased that the TIPS program (or whatever it was called) was done away with. Nothing like your neighbor getting upset at you for playing the music a little too loud and then calling in to say they heard you discussing commercial aircraft in a suspicious way.

FileNotFound · 12-03-2003, 01:42 PM

Yes TIPS.

The really scary part was training the UPS/FedEx/USPS delivery guys to take a 'peek' into your house as they asked for a signiture for the package. Maybe see something suspicious, even suggested that they ask what the package is etc...

That was by far one of the most insane documents I ever read.

xoxoxoBruce · 12-03-2003, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vsp

Go to one of Dubya's public appearances, carrying a sign displaying your polite, non-profane, but firmly-held displeasure with the President.

Watch as you and those expressing similar sentiments are ordered to move to a designated "First Amendment Zone," too far away to be seen or heard, while pro-Dubya attendees are allowed to remain up close.

Refuse to move, on the grounds that the entire nation is a "First Amendment Zone."

Watch what happens.

<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/09/news_pf/Opinion/Zones_hinder_free_spe.shtml">Example one</a>

<a href="http://www.metrobeat.net/gbase/Expedite/Content?oid=oid%3A1622">Example two</a>

<a href="http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2002/06/17_Dictatorship.html">Example three</a>

Need more?

Whoopee do. In 1960 I took a nixon sign (I know, I know) to a Kennedy rally. Black eye, bloody nose, torn clothing and a very pissed off mother. What's new?

Happy Monkey · 12-03-2003, 09:46 PM

Was it the secret service who did it? Was it the police?

vsp · 12-04-2003, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Whoopee do. In 1960 I took a nixon sign (I know, I know) to a Kennedy rally. Black eye, bloody nose, torn clothing and a very pissed off mother. What's new?

The point is that in 1960, you were allowed to stand your ground and be visible. I'll wager that Kennedy's security team didn't drag you off and stomp you without provocation.

Doing what you did is sort of like wearing Cowboys silver-and-blue to an Eagles home game; it's understood that you're opening yourself up to a certain degree of disagreement and harassment. (In Philly, it may also be opening yourself up to extensive dental reconstruction.) But you're still allowed to do so, if you can take the heat; there's no fine print on the ticket saying "Cowboys fans must watch the game from the 200-level men's room on closed-circuit TV." You can sit in your seat and yell HOW 'BOUT DEM COWBOYS just as loudly as those around you are chanting E-A-G-L-E-S.

If you're being intentionally disruptive, they have the right to ask you to leave. But if you're being calm and presenting your opinions and angry, drunken louts cross the line into physical harassment, _you're_ not the problem. You're not the one at fault, and you're not the one who should be hauled in front of Judge McCaffery. You have every right to go against the grain, even in the other guy's home turf, and the law protects you as much as it'd protect the other guy if you started throwing punches.

These "First Amendment Zone" incidents are not based on security issues in the slightest; it's been repeatedly shown that sign-carriers are being segregated _specifically because of their ideologies_. Supporters stay; protestors get shuffled away, even during open-to-the-public events, to a place where Bush and his supporters don't have to listen to or see any contrary opinions. Public disagreement doesn't look good on TV cameras or on the front page, y'know.

Except that the last time I checked, this was still the United States of America, and it's not supposed to work that way.

(Note that I'm not saying that nonconformists _deserve_ to be harassed, physically or otherwise, whether they're at an Eagles game or a political rally. I'm saying that at events with high levels of emotion, us-against-them mentalities and rabble-rousing, which certainly includes both sports and politics, I'm not _surprised_ that it happens, and anyone who is surprised shouldn't be.)

Kitsune · 12-04-2003, 08:12 AM

Ah, it doesn't matter. You'll never hear about this stuff in the news, anyways.

FileNotFound · 12-04-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Was it the secret service who did it? Was it the police?

Well the cops showed up about the loud music and probably saw the poster and apparently the loud music didn't come from the student but some other flat. It's likley that the cop got pissed off and figured to fuck the kid over by submiting a report to CIA.

Happy Monkey · 12-04-2003, 09:50 AM

Sorry - I was asking xoxoxoBruce whether it was the cops or the secret service who beat him up for having a Nixon poster. That's the difference between "First Ammendment Zones" and roughhousing between opposing rally attendees.

Radar · 12-04-2003, 11:53 AM

"First Amendment Zones" are a HUGE violation of the Constitution. The real First Amendment zone encompasses every piece of land within the borders of the United States or its territories.

I don't require a permit to exercise my rights, and I would not allow someone to tell me where I can exercise them, especially in public land. And if someone were dumb enough to use force against me to make me move to another area, they'd be met with force and even though I wouldn't win the "force" game, I'd make sure there were a few people hurting next to me.

I don't consider the use of force to defend against unjust force to be a crime even against those in uniform. I also don't consider assault against a police officer to be any different or worse than that against any other person.

I reserve the right to kick the ass out of any cop who uses force against me for exercising my natural and unalienable right to exercise free speech anywhere I want on publicly owned land.

Kitsune · 12-04-2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radar
I don't require a permit to exercise my rights, and I would not allow someone to tell me where I can exercise them, especially in public land.

But Radar, this means you are a liberal hippy and obviously unpatriotic! Security and peace of the Homeland come before your freedoms! :p

OnyxCougar · 12-23-2003, 06:43 PM

Security and peace of the Motherland, you said?

Torrere · 12-23-2003, 10:13 PM

I thought he said Fatherland...

russotto · 12-24-2003, 09:19 AM

"First Amendment Zones". Cordoned-off symbols of freedom. Random (RANDOM!) searches of your car at airports based on nothing more than hot air from a former PA governor. Cameras everywhere. US citizens detained secretly, and/or tried in military tribunals, or just held without charges or access to an attorney. Courts which put up only wishy-washy opposition to these actions.

And no complaints at all from the public at large, particularly not to anything marked as preventing terrorism. The "grand experiment" that was the United States is over. It has failed. The terrorists have won, and freedom has neither champion (Sorry, Radar, you don't count) nor constituency.

headsplice · 01-12-2004, 05:50 PM

Take a big ol' bite of that cynical cake, russotto!
The "Grand Experiment" isn't dead, but you could certainly make a strong argument that it is on its last legs. Paul Krugman (yes, of the NYT) was on MPR today talking about, amongst other things, the psychology of revolutionaries (taken from writing by Henry Kissinger) and when you take the points he outlined and compare them to the Neo-conservatives and they're behavior over the past ten years or so, we have some scary shit on our hands.
Does anyone doubt that the Neo-conservatives want to fundamentally reshape the political and social landscape of the United States? If you have any doubts, see what the think tanks (who are the philosophical brains behind Bush and Co.) write about, not what the current administration says it is doing (NEVER trust the horse's mouth).
So, does anyone want to take bets that in the next, say, three decades we either have a Depression-sized depression and/or massive internal strife (probably, though not necessarily, military in nature) that leads to the break up of the United States of America?
mmm....cynical cake.....ooohhhhhhh

12-03-2003, 01:18 PM	#16
FileNotFound Intouch with his inner sheep rider. Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 603	Oddly enough. Very little it seems. The difference was that somebody complained to SS about it. SS didn't go out looking for people with posters. It's very likley that somebody just wanted to mess with the girl and filed a completly overblown tip about the girl. There aren't exactly many cases of things like these happeneing. When SS gets tips that appear totaly overblown they still need to check them out just because they can't risk ignoring it. What if it's true? It's easier to check it out... __________________ This is a rat. \|This is a hamster.\| This is a chipmunk.\| This is a Sheep Rider.

12-03-2003, 01:42 PM	#18
FileNotFound Intouch with his inner sheep rider. Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 603	Yes TIPS. The really scary part was training the UPS/FedEx/USPS delivery guys to take a 'peek' into your house as they asked for a signiture for the package. Maybe see something suspicious, even suggested that they ask what the package is etc... That was by far one of the most insane documents I ever read. __________________ This is a rat. \|This is a hamster.\| This is a chipmunk.\| This is a Sheep Rider.

12-03-2003, 09:46 PM	#20
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Was it the secret service who did it? Was it the police? __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

12-04-2003, 09:50 AM	#24
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Sorry - I was asking xoxoxoBruce whether it was the cops or the secret service who beat him up for having a Nixon poster. That's the difference between "First Ammendment Zones" and roughhousing between opposing rally attendees. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

12-04-2003, 11:53 AM	#25
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	"First Amendment Zones" are a HUGE violation of the Constitution. The real First Amendment zone encompasses every piece of land within the borders of the United States or its territories. I don't require a permit to exercise my rights, and I would not allow someone to tell me where I can exercise them, especially in public land. And if someone were dumb enough to use force against me to make me move to another area, they'd be met with force and even though I wouldn't win the "force" game, I'd make sure there were a few people hurting next to me. I don't consider the use of force to defend against unjust force to be a crime even against those in uniform. I also don't consider assault against a police officer to be any different or worse than that against any other person. I reserve the right to kick the ass out of any cop who uses force against me for exercising my natural and unalienable right to exercise free speech anywhere I want on publicly owned land. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

12-04-2003, 08:12 AM	#22
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Ah, it doesn't matter. You'll never hear about this stuff in the news, anyways.

12-23-2003, 06:43 PM	#27
OnyxCougar Junior Master Dwellar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kingdom of Atlantia Posts: 2,979	Security and peace of the Motherland, you said?

12-23-2003, 10:13 PM	#28
Torrere a real smartass Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,121	I thought he said Fatherland...

12-24-2003, 09:19 AM	#29
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	"First Amendment Zones". Cordoned-off symbols of freedom. Random (RANDOM!) searches of your car at airports based on nothing more than hot air from a former PA governor. Cameras everywhere. US citizens detained secretly, and/or tried in military tribunals, or just held without charges or access to an attorney. Courts which put up only wishy-washy opposition to these actions. And no complaints at all from the public at large, particularly not to anything marked as preventing terrorism. The "grand experiment" that was the United States is over. It has failed. The terrorists have won, and freedom has neither champion (Sorry, Radar, you don't count) nor constituency.

01-12-2004, 05:50 PM	#30
headsplice Relaxed Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 676	Take a big ol' bite of that cynical cake, russotto! The "Grand Experiment" isn't dead, but you could certainly make a strong argument that it is on its last legs. Paul Krugman (yes, of the NYT) was on MPR today talking about, amongst other things, the psychology of revolutionaries (taken from writing by Henry Kissinger) and when you take the points he outlined and compare them to the Neo-conservatives and they're behavior over the past ten years or so, we have some scary shit on our hands. Does anyone doubt that the Neo-conservatives want to fundamentally reshape the political and social landscape of the United States? If you have any doubts, see what the think tanks (who are the philosophical brains behind Bush and Co.) write about, not what the current administration says it is doing (NEVER trust the horse's mouth). So, does anyone want to take bets that in the next, say, three decades we either have a Depression-sized depression and/or massive internal strife (probably, though not necessarily, military in nature) that leads to the break up of the United States of America? mmm....cynical cake.....ooohhhhhhh __________________ Don't Panic

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)