December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« "If it were up to me, I'd kill the Americans and drink their blood." | Main | "We're Being Attacked By The Culture of Life! Send Zombies!" »

March 22, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The problem is they need to worry about protesters disrupting events. When you were a shirt that pretty much says you don't like the President then of they are obviously not going to let you attend.

That would be like me wearing a "swift boat veterans for truth" shirt to a John Kerry event. They would stop me just as quick. This shouldn't be a suprise to anyone, it's common sense.

It's just not true. Kerry didn't bar obvious Republicans from his campaign stops - I know, because I was there, and people with Bush tshirts were there. (You couldn't bring in your own signs, though - either for Bush or Kerry.)

On the other hand, Bush prevented any Democrats from attending numerous campaign appearances.

Would a disruption be such a bad thing, Lokester? The free speech cage mentality has become altogether too popular and sensitivity of people who rule a little too precious for a healthy democratic process. I don't think it would such a bad thing for people with enormous power to be constantly defending their policies -- at the whim of the people they govern. Sure there would be disruptive and stupid people. But so what?

Does that kid's shirt read "Be a smart?" Am I missing part of the shirt "Be a smarty," perhaps? Or is there something on the other side that ties it all together?

Yeah, it's not a great picture. It says "Be a Smart" followed by a drawing of a donkey. Under that it says "Young Democrats."

I'm not taking sides, but it should be noted that at universities over the last ten years there have been numerous examples of students shouting down speakers. In every case that I have read about the speakers were conservatives. Therefore, Kerry's camp would have no precedent to concern them, but Bush's camp would have many. It doesn't excuse what they did; just explains the difference (maybe).

Kids, kids, kids. (1) Bush is the President of the United Fucking States of America. Even the most brain-dead conservative should be able to see the problem if the head of the executive branch is in the habit of insulating himself from disagreement. (2) It's the Free Speech, stupid.

Does that kid's shirt read "Be a smart?" Am I missing part of the shirt

uh, if you understand pictograms, you'd have to read it as "Be a smart-ass" but with a political twist...

Wow, we've really got a problem in this country when the wingnuts see nothing wrong with a government official keeping a citizen out of a government event because the citizen may not be sufficient supportive of The Party.

Kid, kid, kid. (1) Only a brain-dead liberal (and I am coming from left of the liberals) would not realize that the president of the fucking united stated cannot possibley insulate himself from disagreement. (2) The practice of shouting down speakers is the opposite of free speach, moron (it's interesting that it took a comment post to point out to you what the shirt message meant; but you'll say "I knew that!").

This is rich: "brain-dead conservative," "wingnuts"; these posts read like right-wing parody of the left. That is both sad (because it shows the shallowness of current liberal thought) and dangerous, because these people need to be countered by something better than childish name-calling.

Damn, Brad, get a spell-checker. I don't believe that you're coming from left of liberal. I think you're a wingnut talking point troll, because you're coming armed with all of the Horowitz talking points, poor grammar, and spin that they do.

And if you're really coming from left of liberal, you damn well should be taking sides, because you're next, after the gay people.

What law school did you go to? I am not referring to a right of free speech to heckle. I am talking about removing people from a government-run event solely based on their political affiliation and the non-violent, non-obscene message on their shirt.

Now, go fuck yourself, you right-wing troll.

"because the citizen may not be sufficient supportive of The Party"

Please continue; we need your grammar lessons!!!

I find it interesting how Brad comes in here, effectively shouts and heckles, and then projects his behavior onto a young man he has never met, whose rights were violated, who, as far as we know, has never heckled anyone. Can we stick to the facts here?

Free Speech, Dissent, and Public Assembly are under assault. These constitutional rights don't fit in with the politics of the Republican Noise Machine. Read the forward to the 104 page report by the National Lawyers Guild. Read the whole report, if you have the time. This report is a free download from ( It documents numerous cases where constitutional rights have been violated, in Miami, New York, Boston, Portland, and elsewhere.

Bush likes to preach "we refuse to live in fear," but he's too cowardly to let a young man in to see him because he doesn't like his garb. It's disgusting, and scary to those who believe in the ideals of this country and its Constitution.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Support This Blog

Philadelphia Bloggers