Politics: A new beginning

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I thought there were such reports; I have not been following that closely, but will keep an eye out.

There was an early rumor. Perhaps her statemetn to the detective that he "bent her over a chair" and raped her was assumed initially to have mean anal sex.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
There was an early rumor. Perhaps her statemetn to the detective that he "bent her over a chair" and raped her was assumed initially to have mean anal sex.

I had heard that rumor as well, but I had never seen anything indicating injury to Slot C reported by the media. Given the expansive coverage given to her other injuries, I am sure that any harm to Slot C would have leaked faster than a bellyful of Olestra.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I had heard that rumor as well, but I had never seen anything indicating injury to Slot C reported by the media. Given the expansive coverage given to her other injuries, I am sure that any harm to Slot C would have leaked faster than a bellyful of Olestra.

I'm disappointed you didn't fit a Sanatorum joke in there somewhere.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I'm disappointed you didn't fit a Sanatorum joke in there somewhere.

This is a serious matter. I would never joke about Olestra.

[Replaced_Texan]

There's an article in today's Salon.com about a lawsuit filed against the Secret Service's new "free speech" zones that protesters get thrown into every time they show up with signs to locations that the President may be. If you show up with a sign that supports the President, as I understand it, you don't get hauled off.

I've heard about this issue here in Texas. Apparently, all sorts of "we love the President" signs (and the people carrying them) are right in front of the Ranch in Crawford, but the "No War for Oil" type signs and the people carrying them are shipped off to a location fairly distant from the President, and the media that follows the President.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ice/index.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
There's an article in today's Salon.com about a lawsuit filed against the Secret Service's new "free speech" zones that protesters get thrown into every time they show up with signs to locations that the President may be. If you show up with a sign that supports the President, as I understand it, you don't get hauled off.

I've heard about this issue here in Texas. Apparently, all sorts of "we love the President" signs (and the people carrying them) are right in front of the Ranch in Crawford, but the "No War for Oil" type signs and the people carrying them are shipped off to a location fairly distant from the President, and the media that follows the President.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ice/index.html

How can this possibly be constitutional?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
How can this possibly be constitutional?

Dude, you and me both. I'd love to see someone defend this if the characterization is accurate.

Hello

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Dude, you and me both. I'd love to see someone defend this if the characterization is accurate.

I believe I heard an SS spokesman tell some NPR reporter or interviewer* that intermixing of persons with certain inflammatory messages created a risk of violence, and that people were placed in "zones" with like-minded other demonstrators for their own safety.

Of course, this is a crock of shit, but there you go.

Seems surprising that it's necessary to place the "Boo, President" people hundreds of yards away where (for example) TV cameras can't see them. Maybe they could switch occasionally and put the "Yay, President" people in the pen on alternate days.

*Yadda, yadda.

[rufus leeking]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
How can this possibly be constitutional?

because the two groups present different risks? the "yeah Bush" people are probably mostly tourists in Crawford to see the ranch and have some bar-b-que before continuing across Texas. anti-bush people are probably there for the purpose of protesting, that is they have an agenda. keeping them seperate to limit fighting and also to be able to them seperate for whatever security reason doesn't seem too out of whack. of course assuming a lesser security risk from pro-Bush peeps may be a flaw in the system. as Petunia is showing elsewhere this week, one can disguise one's true feelings and fool some.
as to keeping them off camera, doesn't the media know where they are? the investigative press can't find the rabble?
they don't do major seperation outside the White House, do they? if I wanted to keep bush from seeing negative signs that would be where i'd start.

and also, I'd like to see an unbiased report on how far away the lunatics are pushed.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
and also, I'd like to see an unbiased report on how far away the lunatics are pushed.

I suggest a Google news search for "lunatics."

[rufus leeking]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I suggest a Google...... search........."

are you aware of any classes?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by rufus leeking
are you aware of any classes?

Yes, but in light of the fact that your position in this matter justifies isolating all sitting presidents from any anti-administration protest on the ground that your stereotype of a protestor presents a marginally greater security risk than yahoos who would gladly suck his dick (metaphorically speaking, in this case, of course), I'm not confident you would get my little PrintShop certificate.

Now, create another sock to amuse and delight the elders. {Clap, clap.}

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I believe I heard an SS spokesman tell some NPR reporter or interviewer* that intermixing of persons with certain inflammatory messages created a risk of violence, and that people were placed in "zones" with like-minded other demonstrators for their own safety.

WTF?! Oh, that SS. Never mind.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Dude, you and me both. I'd love to see someone defend this if the characterization is accurate.

Hello

I am not entirely sure if people with pro-Bush signs are allowed to keep their signs. I've done some googling and I've found a
New York Times article about a "professional protestor" and an ACLU fact sheet on the issue..

Depending on how much you trust the ACLU and the New York Times, I think the characterization is fairly accurate.

[rufus leeking]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Now, create another sock to amuse and delight the elders. {Clap, clap.}

I'm trying man, I'm trying, but the new sock thing is harder than it used to be. As to arguing with you on the other point, I will pass. I feel much the same way Flannery O'Conner felt when being compared to Faulkner..." You know, we all have to get off the tracks when that big frieght train comes through!"