The candidate of change, the shining proponent of a "new way" in national politics, says that you aren't allowed to bring a sign to his rally. So much for the right of free political speech. To add insult to injury, this rally was held at the publicly funded University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Virginia. So, now the government is lending the weight of its authority to squelch free speech. So, where is the hue and cry about this unAmerican activity? Did the media even note this heavy-handed policy?
But, it is all true nonetheless. The rally was held and weak-spined school officials bent over and meekly accepted the rules derived from the authoritarian penchant of the Obama campaign with its anti-first amendment proclivities. Some few small voices questioned this oppression of American rights, but for the most part no one seems to have noticed that Virginians had their Constitutional rights quashed that day. Shockingly, some even thought it was a good idea.
The Obama campaign, falling back on the oldest dodge in the book, claimed that campaign signs were not allowed because of "security concerns." Who can doubt, though, that it was instead because of "camera concerns"? The Obama campaign was far more interested in photo ops clear of McCain signs or other unwanted reminders that there are other opinions out there among the unwashed masses than that of sycophancy for The One.
On one hand, I see the logic in a campaign making sure that it controls the atmosphere of a campaign stop. It's only good sense. And if this control were to be exerted on private property with the full acceptance and participation of the property owners, well who can deny that? But it wasn't. This rally happened on public land.
Now, let us harken back to the "reason" that Sarah Palin was refused the podium at the anti-Iran rally last week, shall we? She was denied because of the so-called "equal time" rule, remember? This is a shadowy "rule" that seems to state that no politician may speak in public unless his opponent also appears to speak.
So, one wonders: did the University of Mary Washington invite the McCain campaign to the rally with Obama? And if not, why not? After all, this is a publicly funded institution. Are we to accept that such a place would violate that sacrosanct "equal time" rule? Are we to believe that a place funded by our money not only didn't invite the opposing candidate, but used its publicly derived authority to squelch free speech by disallowing signs?
I suppose we'll have to believe such a thing, after all.
Of course, the media doesn't mind. Who can deny that such heavy-handed campaign policies smoothes the waters for their messiah. I can only chuckle at this. I mean, Obama is the first messiah that needs average men to smooth the waters for him instead of being all powerful enough to smooth them himself. How shallow must be the water he walks upon?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I went to such a rally
September 29, 2008 - 23:23 ET by wdhorningI went to such a rally and there has to be some limits, even for Obama, sadly, I must admit. This is because if the forum is a being sponsored by an organization, then that organization has to have order at its rally. Opposing signs often result in confrontations and sometimes violence, which serves no purpose, plus then Obama and company could blame the "other side" for inciting a riot, or whatever.
Its much better to sponsor an opposing rally at another location.
In fact, I was at an "Impeach Clinton" rally on Capitol Hill, and sure enough, someone was there with a sign supporting Clinton. And yes, it was a security problem, but not what you think. Security there had to actually surround this person, not to intimitate them, but to protect them from anyone who might get any ideas to start attacking them. Eventually the police safely escorted this person away without incident.
Again, I think Obama is the worse thing that could happen to this country if he is elected president, but free speech is not free speech when others interfere with the speakers at a rally they or their organization sponsor. And this is a two way street, that applies equally to all political parties.
Obama has been busting People all over America
September 29, 2008 - 23:25 ET by Lame CherryThere was a kid in Missouri a few days ago who approached an Obama table and started asking questions about Brzezinski policy to which the Obama people refused to answer so he left.
In the meantime they called the police on this college kid and had him arrested on numerous charges.
The same garbage went on against Lawrence Sinclair where Biden of Delaware got fake charges filed and Mr. Sinclair was tossed in prison without his medications as he is an invalid.
The New York reporters were attacked. Others were kept off of planes or interviews.
There is a distinct pattern in the Obama camp in calling out law enforcement with "truth squads" harassing citizens simply espousing their rights as Americans.
Lest we forget the Obama camp demanding the DOJ file charges against the Texas people who were producing ads outing Obama in his fraud.
You Obama people think this is cute when it is not you. There is a black man from Obama's church named Donald Young who was talking to Lawrence Sinclair and said he and Obama were sex partners.
Mr. Young was found shot to death last December with no Chicago PD arrrests and is it not strange that the FBI was not ordered to take over this case as Mr. Young was a known friend of Barack Obama. Certainly for security reasons if this was John McCain and a homosexual was murdered who was a close friend there would be feds all over this.
So these Obama patterns exist and not just in slapping Republicans around. I ask people to remember the b*tch slapping which Hillary Clinton took from Barack Obama.
He rationed money out to her. He humiliated her and then he left her hanging.
Who do you think was in on the destroying John Edwards fiasco outing him?
Gee whose interest would it benefit if the National Enquirer which was covering the sodomite and drug story of Obama with murdered Donald Young, suddenly stopped reporting it, but John Edwards showed up in their sights?
Hmmmm no one has explained how the National Enquirer knew where the bottle blonde was staying in a hotel. No one has stated how the Enquirer knew where John Edwards was and how they knew he was going to be meeting this woman for sex.
That kind of information is not available in normal journalism. Someone had to have been monitoring their phones, computers, travel etc...
That only comes from political machines connected inside the government.
As Hillary Clinton was out of the race, the only person who smearing Edwards would benefit is Barack Obama.
So you Democrats who think this is acceptable criminal acts by the Obama campaign, just remember Barack and Axelrod came after your two biggest candidates ruthlessly and they will be coming after you too.
A Democrat with a brain who backed Edwards and Clinton would not be voting for Obama.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
"The candidate of change,
September 30, 2008 - 08:45 ET by kg"The candidate of change, the shining proponent of a "new way" in national politics"
There is nothing new about the way Obama is covering his ass in this campaign. Look no further than Germany in the late '30's. There have been many reports from the 'behind the scenes' of the Obama campaign. Threats of law suits are growing rapidly. He has spent a half a billion dollars trying to get elected. It is appearing that a large portion of this mass of wealth is being spent on strong arm tactics. The MSM's silence is deafening.
The big question is will this news reach enough people before the election.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
I went and read the
September 29, 2008 - 23:30 ET by Indiana JoeI went and read the article, and then the comments. I love comments to these kinds of stories, it really gives one an insight on the minds of some of the lefty loons. Such as:
"Where is this pontificator when McCain holds his sanitized town halls?"
Well, if McCain isn't at this college, does it matter?
"I pray for everyone's safety and hope they have a wonderful and enlightening event."
This poster had several sentences such as this. I thought it was a political rally, not a combination rodeo/wedding/prayer meeting.
"Youre not REALLY trying to say that the mccains ALLOW pro-Obama signs at their rallies? right, thanks for the laugh!"
This in response to a poster that complained about Obama's no-signs rule. It illustrates known troll behavior, i.e. the first poster never even mentioned McCain, let alone made such a suggestion. And the ban is for all signs, not just McCain signs. Knocking down straw-men, we've seen that before.
"It's supposed to rain, so don't forget your umbrellas. Bumbershoots will be confiscated. Big Parasol sale Sunday at UMW."
Aha! What's Obama's portfolio position on umbrellas? I smell a scoop!
And the final outrage:
"In 1968, Robert Kennedy was shot in the back of the head and murdered while campaigning. Apparently, the Secret Service still hasn't gotten over it. So, take your stick and stick it."
Another poster complained because he couldn't take his small sign which was just "on a stick." What makes this even better is, the article quoted the SS as not caring about signs in pointing out this was Obama and UMW's decision. But hey, when does a true troll ever bother reading an article before commenting on it.
All kidding aside, this should be scary, but it seems so reasonable doesn't it? They just want the poor masses to be able to see their Messiah.
But it's way more than that. If I thought he had a snowball's chance, I'd be more worried. But this is just the type thing that's denying him that chance, more and more.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Story?
September 29, 2008 - 23:33 ET by arkansaszippersMaybe the media doesn't mind because this barely registers as a story. Ooooh, no signs allowed at a rally! What is our country coming to when people can't make up stupid signs and wave them around wildly while they cheer or boo? What's next, a ban on bumper stickers? How will the public ever express themselves?
Well then...
September 29, 2008 - 23:38 ET by Warner Todd HustonWell, then zippy, I don't suppose you'd mind if I deleted your reply here, would you? Or if we cancel your little account, right? Why should you mind? Ooooooh, no comments from zippy allowed. What is our site coming to when some halfwit can't blurt out the first half thought out blather that comes to his mind? How WILL he ever find a way to express himself?
Or maybe...
;^D
September 29, 2008 - 23:40 ET by Indiana JoeLMAO, Warner.
Yours is much better than mine. It IS good to be the King.
You win.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
You're mad
September 29, 2008 - 23:45 ET by arkansaszippersWhat are you getting so worked up about? There's no need for name calling.
And why should my account get canceled? I'm not saying anything messed up. Geez.
So, arkansasfly,
September 29, 2008 - 23:54 ET by R D HelmYou probably aren't bothered by the Obama Gestapo's activities out in Missouri, either.
It figures.
-Dave
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them - Rick Roberts
My troll fuse length today: 0.003mm
Well, Zip, I have to say,
September 30, 2008 - 01:08 ET by Warner Todd HustonWell, Zip, I have to say, you need to look up the word irony. No one is canceling your account.
HEY ZIPPY...
September 30, 2008 - 03:50 ET by danybhoyIf the Bill Of Rights & in this case, the 1st Amendment ain't worth getting worked up over, don't get pissed when it gets taken away from you. If you want to know what's coming down the track if Obama gets elected with Pelosi & Reed in control, read "Liberal Facism". Long story short, it talks about the history of speech codes, who does'nt want free speech, & what those people have done to squelch free speech. The shocker is that it is those tolerent, open minded liberal lefties who hate free speech. Be carefull what you wish for...consider yourself warned.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
Cancelled Letters
September 30, 2008 - 02:57 ET by NortoThe local paper has a 3 strike rule on emails. If 3 people object to content, the letter is yanked, and no review is held, nor can you find out who or why it happened.
Someone had asked where the other 7 states were that O was referring to and I emailed about the OIC, both the question and my opinion were pulled.
Banning signs at a
September 29, 2008 - 23:38 ET by Indiana JoeBanning signs at a political rally doesn't strike you as odd? I mean, you know what political rallies are like, right? People come to cheer and get worked up for their candidate, they yell and hold up... well, they used to. I know, I've seen it.
Ah, those were the days! But I agree with you about the bumper stickers, they're just ugly. I can't think of a single reason someone would want one, so sure, ban them too.
And what about....
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Komrade Barack
September 29, 2008 - 23:51 ET by well99Feels the needs of the little peasants to demonstrate their affection of The Great Leader.Yet Komrade Barack would not be able to see his teleprompter and photo shoot would not get his best side.So it is necessary that the peasants settle for kowtowing to The Great One.Let the homage began.
A one and a two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvxiG56M-eU
Hilarious, well! I love
September 30, 2008 - 05:43 ET by motherbeltHilarious, well!
I love Beck's spoofs!
MB
September 30, 2008 - 08:59 ET by well99It is funny.I enjoy playing it so often.I still get a kick out of it.It is a masterpiece.
Zip
September 29, 2008 - 23:45 ET by MrShyAre you sure you're aware of what you just wrote ???
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
I guess
September 29, 2008 - 23:47 ET by arkansaszippersYeah, I guess I just don't think it's a huge deal. Sue me.
And I don't like bumper stickers; never have.
I'm guessing you've got a
September 29, 2008 - 23:50 ET by Free StinkerI'm guessing you've got a problem with free speech too.
Just sayin'
Sure, you're perfectly free
September 30, 2008 - 00:23 ET by MrShySure, you're perfectly free to say/believe it.
Just funny, coming from the righteous party that screams it's head off about "evil, controlling neocons" stripping them of their freedoms, "wiretapping", shredding the Constitution, acting like fascists, yada, yada...
And you're telling us you're fine with Obama's people censoring protesters? Pretty amazing.
Hypocrisy on parade, and the real evil side exposed.
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
And I don't like bumper stickers; never have.
September 30, 2008 - 00:30 ET by R D HelmThat's because you can't afford a car that actually has a bumper.
Grown tired of pushing that Yugo yet?
:-^)
-Dave
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them - Rick Roberts
My troll fuse length today: 0.003mm
Too Funny Dave!!! ROFL!!!
September 30, 2008 - 00:36 ET by Asian ConYou just made me choke on some Mountain Dew!
"Americans, in the final analysis, want a strong economy and wish to live in safety and security. So the choice is simple. It's McCain." - Larry Elder
If they didn't have a
September 30, 2008 - 03:10 ET by SchnikeysIf they didn't have a problem with how the public expressed themselves, then why did they feel the need to forbid only pro-John McCain, anti-Obama signs?
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
Schnikeys,
September 30, 2008 - 09:26 ET by Indiana JoeIt was a ban on all signs. That mistake, thinking it was against McCain signs only, has been made, but the article clearly states it was a ban on signs. Period.
Is that better, or worse? I dunno, but the willingness of people to lay down and just accept this is really the scariest part.
"Not with a bang, but with a whimper."
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Signs? Even the ones
September 30, 2008 - 10:48 ET by SchnikeysSigns? Even the ones without posts (pole supports) attached to them?
I'd say it's pretty lame. I wouldn't jump straight to the conclusion that Obama-Biden desire fascist control over the People. But then again, I wouldn't exactly rule it out, what with the Missouri situation and all.
It is indeed strange, though, that a candidate would ask that rally attendees not bring signs to a rally. There's no valid reason for such a request, unless it was only pertaining to signs with posts attached...in which case, this Newsbusters article is a dud!
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
The source article
September 30, 2008 - 11:21 ET by Indiana Joeonly says "signs." Poles are mentioned as a reason for no signs, but the article says "signs," and banners are mentioned, too.
Seems like they think it's reasonable to ban all signs. Guess that makes it "fair." Wholesale censorship instead of retail. At least they can deny being "biased." They're oppressing everyone.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Bumper Stickers
September 30, 2008 - 03:45 ET by harry flashmanHowever offnsive you may find them, they are protected free speech under that amendment that only Liberalite networks and newspapers think applies to them. Like when they reveal classified information under the dodge of "free speech." As far as signs at rallies - if a candidate can't "tolerate" an opposing position, no matter how communicated, said candidate can hardly claim to support the 1st Amendment. I remember when the Nazi's marched in the overwhelmingly Jewish community of Skokie, Illinois. It sucked but, it's one of those wonderful things that distignuish us from the Euroweenies and tin pot dictatorships that the Liberalites hold up as our betters. Can't take the heat? Find another aspiration or kwitchyerbitchin.
Flash,
September 30, 2008 - 09:30 ET by Indiana JoeIt's a ban on all signs. I guess the presumption is it's only anti-Obama/pro-McCain signs, but reading the article, it's pretty clear it's all signs.
I'm sure the target is McCain signs, but it doesn't actually say that.
<edit: Unless I'm missing something. I guess I could be wrong, if this many people think so.>
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Warner: please clear all
September 30, 2008 - 08:04 ET by SickofLibsWarner: please clear all future posts thru our new pal first.
Only then can we be sure that a story is really a story.
What did he say wrong?
September 30, 2008 - 17:16 ET by ProssWhy is everyone jumping on this guy? What did he say wrong? I am in partial agreement with him. What is the big deal about no signs...there is plenty more avenues to bust the messiahs chops then a "sign ban" at a rally. Not a big deal to me. However, i for one love bumper stickers.
zippy, your boy Obama is attempting to use the police powers...
September 30, 2008 - 17:47 ET by R D Helm...of government to silence those who oppose him in many areas of the country.
Are you not at least a little concerned that, if he is willing to go to this length to silence his detractors as a mere candidate, how far would he go once he is POTUS?
-Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
UMW is quite a liberal
September 30, 2008 - 03:09 ET by SchnikeysUMW is quite a liberal university in quite a liberal city; it's easy to see why they welcomed the measure. "Security concerns?" It'd be nice if they elaborated.
------------------------------------------------------------
"My morality is your morality."
You want to know what a
September 30, 2008 - 04:39 ET by Jack BauerYou want to know what a "community organizer" does?
He works for ACORN.
(A Criminal Organizing & Recruitment Network)
Small peanuts
September 30, 2008 - 05:12 ET by The DistributistBumper stickers? Rally signs? Small peanuts compared to what the Obamians have up their collective sleeves... The Clowar-Piven strategy is at work here, (http://www.discovert...) they will not rest until they take everything, even the bumper of Zipperheads' stickerless Yugo.
http://www.americant...
"Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact which are native to the newspapers; and, if they turn out not to be facts, that is still more native to newspapers." -GKC
Heh
September 30, 2008 - 05:55 ET by 10ksnookerThey did it this way in Kenya, what's the big deal.
KENYA...
September 30, 2008 - 06:34 ET by danybhoyOutside of producing champion long distance runners, Kenya sucks.
"...it's still We The People, Right?" Megadeth
»→ Kenya
September 30, 2008 - 06:47 ET by Cool ArrowBut have you seen that mansion Barack Obama's brother lives in?
I guess the story of Cain and Abel isn't in the Koran.
"I've got a bracelet too" - Barack Obama
If I lived in Kenya, I'd
September 30, 2008 - 09:31 ET by Indiana JoeIf I lived in Kenya, I'd probably be pretty good at running, too. Lots of practice.
I am so bad! ;^D
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
IJ, LOL.
September 30, 2008 - 17:51 ET by R D Helm-Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
christmas is right around the corner
September 30, 2008 - 06:04 ET by tonemeisterthe only reason the libs can get away with this crap is because people better and stronger guard the walls. this allows them there naive notions of how the world should be with no consequences if there wrong. they know this in there hearts and this is where alot of the unreasoning anger comes from. i'd laugh if half the commissioned and non-commissioned officers in the various branches of the service walked on obama's inagauration day. let the code pinkers and daily kos types go on patrol etc...
Public property or not,
September 30, 2008 - 07:25 ET by JasonCPublic property or not, this is surely not an event that is unconditionally open to the public. I'm sure there are - and that you all will agree on their necessity - certain security measures and details in place. And let's be fair here, this is not a ban just on conservative signs, is it? This must mean that the Obama supporters cannot bring in their pithy slogans and anti-McCain zingers either. Equal-opportunity sign banning. Imagine! If an attendee wants to express his or her opinion, he or she would actually have to raise his or her hand during the Q&A and formulate a complete thought!
As to security, the first poster on the forum put it well. Having big cardboard signs demarcating different political preferences stokes confrontation. Mob mentality kicks in - not good. And most signs are nailed to big sticks which mean instant weapons. Do you know how many violent protestors have posed as peaceful protestors to get into the fray, only to reveal that their signs are attached not to 1/4" dowels but to 2x4s? I'm not saying McCain supporters would do this. But it's a legitimate security concern, and people can surely express themselves in other ways.
Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?
2x4's Jason?
September 30, 2008 - 07:44 ET by cocodrieSocialism is being established in this country by left-wing extremists led by a homosexual with a wisp, "Bawny Fwank". He and Chris Dodd are behind this financial crisis 100%
umm..... ....what? Who
September 30, 2008 - 08:16 ET by JasonCumm.....
....what?
Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?
Geez Jason...
September 30, 2008 - 17:56 ET by MightyMouth... Socialism
He IS preaching socialized medicine right?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
let's be fair indeed Jason
September 30, 2008 - 08:53 ET by candanceYou say security measures are needed to protect the speakers. Go back and read the original piece WTH linked to. A spokesman for the Secret Service said that, aside from having large metal poles, there's no reason to be afraid of cardboard signs. That's right - the Secret Service itself says there's no security threat from a harmless cardboard sign.
People have been using signs at rallies for generations and it's never been a problem until now. And yet, all the sudden, we're incapable of using them without a "mob mentality" or getting out of hand. Bitter gun-clinging Bible thumpers are too stupid to protest safely.
Listen up Jason, and listen good. Never before in the history of America has a politician banned public signs at rallies or organized partisan "truth squads" to silence enemies. Dictators do that stuff. Not Presidents.
Tyrants don't rise to power by showing up and saying "hey I'm an evil overlord who wants to take away your rights." There's always an excuse, a security concern, an effort to stop "lies" from spreading. The sheep nod their heads in understanding until all free speech is slowly stripped away.
I'm asking you to take off the lefty glasses for a moment and ask yourself what you'd say if Bush's name was here instead of Obama. Lots of us have railed against Bush for the Patriot Act right along side you. It's time for you give this issue another look.
Candance
September 30, 2008 - 09:04 ET by well99Well said.No pun intended.Good luck with this.
"I'm asking you to take off the lefty glasses for a moment and ask yourself what you'd say if Bush's name was here instead of Obama. Lots of us have railed against Bush for the Patriot Act right along side you. It's time for you give this issue another look."
I think Jason borrowed Alan Colmes lefty glasses.
candance, I think JasonC is saying that freedom-of-expression...
September 30, 2008 - 18:13 ET by R D Helm...is okay only as long as it is convenient.
As a student of history, it is astounding how many societies eventually lost their freedoms by not nipping things like this in the bud from the word go.
After all, Hitler started out just pushing a one day boycott of the business' of German Jews.
Harmless, right?
-Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
Jason,
September 30, 2008 - 09:56 ET by Indiana JoeThere is so much wrong with your argument, I really don't believe you can't see it.
"not an event that is unconditionally open to the public."
It's not? Are they selling tickets? What are the restrictions? And even were that true, what about a classroom? Or a job-site? Do we lose our basic Constitutional rights when we go to school or go to work, just because those venues are not "unconditionally open to the public?" The SCOTUS says we do not. Civil rights don't apply only to a certain critical mass of random people. Not aggrieved "groups." Individuals.
You're right, it's a ban on all signs. There seems some confusion on that from both sides, but the way I read it, no signs permitted at all. We agree. And that makes it okay? Squelching expression is okay as long as you squelch all expression? A case of a little censorship is bad, but wholesale censorship is okay? Why? Because it's "fair?" You're not really be defending that idea, are you?
As the article mentions, the idea of violence is a red-herring. The SS was consulted, and states they have no problem with signs. This is a pro-Obama rally. Why would they be afraid of violence? This sounds like the "they're going to say he's black" paranoia again. Refresh my memory, when did McCain supporters show up at an Obama rally and cause fighting and riots on the speaking floor? If it happened, I didn't hear about it. The Secret Service has handled security at political events pretty much as long as it's existed, and they don't see any problem with signs.
Finally, the idea that "people can surely express themselves in other ways" is an old argument. It was used by people who wanted to enforce dress-codes in public schoools, who wanted to prevent people from wearing clothing that imitated the American flag. It was used by those who didn't want people sewing flags to the seat of their jeans and sitting on it. It's been used to try to stop people from burning the American flag. Many other times, the "there are other ways to express yourself" argument has been advanced, and I'm aware of not one time that it has prevailed. Part of freedom of expression is freedom to choose how to express your opinion. At this point, that has to be considered a well-established legal axiom.
I mean, c'mon, dude!
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
IJ
September 30, 2008 - 10:07 ET by well99McCain supporters dont genuflected to Obama.Since they stand they could overwhelm Obama's security with those signs.Obama whats your sign?
http://www.animalden.com/4720.html
Indy Joe, Candance,
September 30, 2008 - 11:21 ET by JasonCIndy Joe, Candance, well99
I took a little time and followed Candance's demand to "listen up and listen good" on this issue.
And I continue to be unable to find this in any way appalling.
While the possibility of violence is indeed red-herringish - though, again, I'm just saying, protestors have often posed as peaceful and turned their signs into weaponry at opportune moments - the bottom line is that the Obama campaign, if they are indeed selling tickets and putting on a regulated event, has every right to determine what can and cannot be brought into that event. I have a tough time considering this censorship, especially since no one is forcing anybody to attend.
You're not allowed to talk on your cell phone at museums. It does not mean the Met or the Louvre is "censoring." It would be absurd for a college student to bring a sign that says "Physics Sucks!" to a lecture hall; if that student were told to leave, surely it would not be considered censorship, but a legitimate reaction to a disruptive element. If Obama chooses not to allow signs into his rally - and let's be frank here, political slogan placards are the discursive equivalent of monosyllabic grunts; it's not like we'd be missing out on some eloquent ripostes here, just the same "2-4-6-8" garbage that partisan hysterics always spout - then that's his decision, and while we can criticize it or claim that it makes him appear vulnerable to criticism, it does not constitute censorship.
You all seem to have a weak grasp of what censorship entails. If Obama operatives stormed the campus paper to prevent publication of a negative article about the event, fine, censorship. If they shouted down attendees who ask impolitic questions, same deal. Even if they were vetting the content of signs at the gate and removing just the ones that don't say "Obama08," I'd be sympathetic.
Saying ahead of time that signs of either political stripe will not be allowed - big deal. No one is being censored any more than the buffoon at the movie theater who is kicked out by an usher for gabbing on the phone in the middle of the film.
Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?
okay Jason
September 30, 2008 - 11:26 ET by candanceI'm just saying, protestors have often posed as peaceful and turned their signs into weaponry at opportune moments
And yet you're the same kind of person who insists that we can't lose our freedoms because a few crazy people take advantage. How dare the government listen to our phone calls just because Al Qaeda uses phones to communicate! Bush tried to sell the idea with the exact same logic - bad people use it for evil intentions so we have to punish everyone. I'm sorry, but that argument has never flown on NB before.
I have a tough time considering this censorship, especially since no one is forcing anybody to attend.
So the next time Ahmadinejad comes to America to speak, I assume you'll be content with police banning signs outside the building, since no one is forced to gather there anyway?
surely it would not be considered censorship, but a legitimate reaction to a disruptive element.
Again we're not talking about a private classroom or institution. This is a political rally out in the open air where people have been showing up with signs for years. He's running for president, not math professor, and this sets a baseline of how he plans on handling expression.
No one is being censored any more than the buffoon at the movie theater who is kicked out by an usher for gabbing on the phone in the middle of the film
If a movie theater let you talk on the phone every time you went there for a hundred years and suddenly imposed a ban in the presence of a political movie - then yes it would be a problem.
I'm sorry Jason, but again if Bush made this decision we would never hear the end of it, and if you want to apologize for Obama doing it, I won't waste my time. When a truth squad starts targeting posts on NB because "no one is forcing you to show up here" don't come crying to me.
"if they are indeed selling
September 30, 2008 - 11:43 ET by Indiana Joe"if they are indeed selling tickets and putting on a regulated event,"
Are they? Have you found out if they did? It's not a college lecture, or a museum, or anything like that. It's a political rally. And even you have to admit, banning any signs at a political rally (not a debate, not a town-hall, a rally; designed to raise support for a candidate) is just plain weird.
Are you "sympathetic" to the Republicans objecting to Code Pink protestors sneaking into their Convention, a venue that is undeniably under their control every bit as much as a college physics class, and protesting? Or did that strike you as "silencing dissent?" And, as I point out, SCOTUS has even ruled that the Constitution still applies, even in a classroom. Can a professor ban signs? Sure he can. Can he ban a shirt with the opinion you cite? No way, brother... no way!
You seem to have the problem with grasping censorship, Jason. I wouldn't throw any stones, were I you. You argue that, until it rises to a certain level (determined by whom, I ask?), it is not a problem. This is known as "creep." Or a "slippery slope." The SCOTUS has decided not to go there, pretty much saying that anything you want to do to express yourself is okay, as long as you don't cause harm. Not that eliminating any possibility of harm (someone might get a splinter from a "pole," for instance) is a valid reason for denying any form of speech.
"I don't agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Understand the concept?
"When they came for the ____, I didn't say anything, because I was not a ____." You think that's over-stating it? That's how these things actually happen. A little at a time.
Because no one thinks they can happen, they do. It's just a matter of what you're used to, or have gotten used to.
<edit: You know what really kills me about this debate? The very people that have screamed for years that "Bush is shredding the Constitution," with no evidence to point to, have absolutely no problem making excuses for this type of thing. They are OKAY with it, simply because it is their guy doing it! Do any of them have the chutzpah to claim they would defend McCain in the exact same situation? C'mon guys, say that. Say that if McCain were to ban all signs at a political rally, you'd be defending his right to do so. I dare you. I'd be insulted if you thought I'd believe you. This whole debate is unbelievable, and so phony, it's sad.>
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Are they? Have you found
September 30, 2008 - 11:47 ET by JasonCAre they? Have you found out if they did? It's not a college lecture, or a museum, or anything like that. It's a political rally. And even you have
to admit, banning any signs at a political rally (not a debate, not a
town-hall, a rally; designed to raise support for a candidate) is just
plain weird.
I thought someone else said that's what it was. If it's just a big outdoor thing on public grounds, and does not involve ticket-purchase or security checkpoints in general, then Obama's "rule" is bullshit.
Are you "sympathetic" to the Republicans
objecting to Code Pink protestors sneaking into their Convention, a
venue that is undeniably under their control every bit as much as a
college physics class, and protesting? Or did that strike you as
"silencing dissent?"
Yes, actually. Republicans had every right to determine who could or could not come into their convention and who would be forcibly removed. Besides which, I hate Code Pink.
Can a professor ban signs? Sure he can. Can he ban a shirt with the opinion you cite? No way, brother... no way
OK, so wear a t-shirt with a bumper sticker slogan on it. Problem solved.
You seem to have the problem with grasping censorship, Jason. I
wouldn't throw any stones, were I you. You argue that, until it rises
to a certain level (determined by whom, I ask?), it is not a problem.
This is known as "creep." Or a "slippery slope." The SCOTUS has decided
not to go there, pretty much saying that anything you want to do to express yourself is okay, as long as you don't cause harm. Not that eliminating any possibility of harm (someone might get a splinter from a "pole," for instance) is a valid reason for denying any form of speech.
We're conflating the message (the actual speech) with the physical object on which it's displayed. No one has a right to tell students what they can and can't say. They do have a right to tell them what things they can or can't bring through the gate (again, assuming this is a secured, ticketed event).
"I don't agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Understand the concept?
"When they came for the ____, I didn't say anything, because I was not a ____." You think that's over-stating it? That's how these things actually happen. A little at a time.
Goodness gracious, no, I never heard of those platitudes. It's all so clear now...
Who would have dreamed that when socialism came to the U.S.A.
it would be brought not by Bolsheviks in blue jeans but Wall Street
bankers in Gucci loafers?
Jason
September 30, 2008 - 12:12 ET by well99I found it silly.Especially the security aspects of it.If you put this with the truth police and trying to censor a radio station for having someone on against Obama.Add trying to stop NRA commercials.It just shows a pattern.What irks me is his time as a State Senator.How he recieved money from Rezko and let him slide on the abominable job of restoring public housing.Rezko bilked millions and let people go without heat and living in terrible living conditions.Obama turned a blind eye.Change my butt.Obama is just another leech.We have to many of them already.
»→ Silence of the Virginians
September 30, 2008 - 07:44 ET by Cool ArrowSo what we see here is the same thing happening in Missouri.
Virginians and Missourians are being rounded up, silenced, and herded into the Democrat Plantation.
No need to expound further on the perplexing irony of this situation.
Love the brown shirt, Senator Obama, is it new?
"I've got a bracelet too" - Barack Obama
Empty Black Suit!
September 30, 2008 - 08:32 ET by ChasvsThis moron is going to kill us all!
the Presidency is NOT an Affirmative Action Position!
STOP Obama NOW!
"the Presidency is NOT an Affirmative Action Position!"
September 30, 2008 - 17:58 ET by MightyMouthWould make a great bumper sticker!
p.s. good thing I don't put bumper stickers on my car :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
This is the ghostly image
September 30, 2008 - 09:21 ET by bassndudeThis is the ghostly image of the same things the Nazi's did for their rallies in Germany. It would seem to me that Obama has studied the tactics of the brown shirts rather well. If Obama fears cardboard signs, how on earth is he going to face Iran or Russia?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
More Stiffling of Free Speech!!!
September 30, 2008 - 11:17 ET by LostSoulHere is another case where Obama and his goon squads stiffled free speech fo those of you who saw the original and helped spread it far and wide we have some more work to do. Apparently it was to damaging of Obama and his democrat buddies so they found a way to shut it down ,but not until it had reached about 1.2 million viewers. We need to spread this version of it as far and as wide and see if we can beat that and here it is version3 with some proof about how they stiffled free speech,because it was to damaging to them and the little false image they like to project to the general public with the help of the liberal news media which is constantly covering for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmB93McZeI
Well, Hitler had his brownshirts,...
September 30, 2008 - 18:22 ET by R D HelmWell, Hitler had his brownshirts, and Mussolini his blackshirts.
What color should we call Obama's thugs? Greyshirts?
After all, grey is the color that is half black and half white. :-)
LOL-Yeah, I'm a terrible human being.
-Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
Obama's goons get quicker!
September 30, 2008 - 18:51 ET by LostSoulWell they are getting quicker about killing the video's on youtube apparently it is having an effect.The main 1 had 1.2 million viewers the second only 100,000 and the 3rd about 60,000 last time I looked but sadly for them others haver downloaded it and reposted it on youtube and other places lets see how far we can spread it. 2 links 1st is the original video and 2nd is version3 explaining why they banned the 1st plus everything covered in the 1st.Spread it as far as you can while it lasts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiXwZI_YqHY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIrzlFYaSks