If you support Bush, you oppose freedom

[TexasTiger 12,996]

Bush is the most freedom-hating President we have ever had. He loves to talk about freedom being on the march, but doesn't believe Americans who disagree with him have basic rights. This should disturb any freedom-loving American. Blowhard hypocrites, on the other hand, won't give a damn.

 

Allard joins chorus of Colorado officials opposed to ouster of trio from speech

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/ar...3684071,00.html

By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News

April 8, 2005

Spurred by the ouster of three Denver residents from a speech by President Bush last month, a congressman is seeking a formal accounting of the cost of Bush's Social Security trips.

Rep. Henry Waxman, of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, also is questioning whether the White House is using taxpayer funds for political purposes.

"Informing the public is the president's responsibility; using taxpayer resources to mount a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign is an abuse of the president's high office," Waxman said.

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Wayne Allard on Thursday became the seventh member of the Colorado congressional delegation to say that people should not be removed from a presidential event for a bumper sticker - as happened March 21 in Denver.

In that case, three people who had done nothing wrong said they were ejected from a Social Security town hall meeting by a man who looked and acted like a Secret Service agent.

The Secret Service investigated the incident and reported that the man was a Republican Party staffer. The agency told the three that the man admitted removing them solely because they arrived in a car bearing a "No more blood for oil" bumper sticker.

The White House has said that the man removed them "out of concern they might try to disrupt the event."

In response to a query, Allard also said he disagreed with pulling someone from a presidential appearance because of a belief he might disrupt it.

Allard has had 700 town hall meetings in his career and all have been open to everyone, said his press secretary, Angela de Rocha.

The Denver incident was one of a number of events cited by Waxman in a letter asking the Government Accountability Office to calculate the cost of the president's "60 Stops in 60 Days" Social Security campaign.

Waxman said that expelling people with contrary views and promoting a partisan agenda are "hallmarks of campaign events, not government-funded political meetings."

A student was barred from a similar event in Arizona for wearing a Young Democrats T-shirt.

In North Dakota, a list surfaced that banned 42 people from getting tickets to another Bush speech in the campaign.

White House spokesman Allen Abney has refused to provide the cost of the Social Security trips, saying it is wrapped up in the annual presidential travel budget.

Taxpayers have paid more than $2 million just for the flights in the Social Security campaign, which is a bit more than half over, according to calculations made by The Washington Post.

[AURaptor 1,126]

LOL... that's funny. A colossal stretch, of course, but still funny.

Rep. Henry Waxman, of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, also is questioning whether the White House is using taxpayer funds for political purposes.

Yeah, this is all about politics, and nothing to do w/ 'freedom'. Talk to the women of Afghanistan about their freedoms and President Bush.

Stories like this are common place. Protesters who spoke out against Clinton were just 'randomly' auditted too. Such dubious claims about being ejected from this or that after having " done nothing at all " are a dime a dozen, and come from both sides of the aisle.

[TexasTiger 12,996]

LOL... that's funny. A colossal stretch, of course, but still funny. 

Rep. Henry Waxman, of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, also is questioning whether the White House is using taxpayer funds for political purposes.

Yeah, this is all about politics, and nothing to do w/ 'freedom'. Talk to the women of Afghanistan about their freedoms and President Bush.

Stories like this are common place. Protesters who spoke out against Clinton were just 'randomly' auditted too. Such dubious claims about being ejected from this or that after having " done nothing at all " are a dime a dozen, and come from both sides of the aisle.

154901[/snapback]

This is the routine in the Bush administration. Clinton had far more dissenters at events, in fact, I attended an event with several people holding signs his folks would have prefered not be there, but nothing happened to them.

If you looked into this you would find the Secret Service have different marching orders under Bush and the event handlers approach these matters very differently. Perhaps you have forgotten the loyalty oaths required to get into campaign events?

[rexbo 104]

The Secret Service surely had the same marching orders from Clinton to protect himself and his events, maybe even more restrictive. But, the agent's probably blew them off; the Clinton's treated the Secret Service agent's and the White House staff as hired help. I have heard from more than one friend with connections to the White House that the Clinton's, especially Hillary, were hated by the Secret Service and staff. Bush and his family have treated them as family.

To claim that a President that freed 50 MILLION people from brutal regimes, and initiated democratic governments for them, is opposed to freedom is just about the most ludicrous thing TexasTiger has posted on this forum.

[TexasTiger 12,996]

The Secret Service surely had the same marching orders from Clinton to protect himself and his events, maybe even more restrictive.  But, the agent's probably  blew them off; the Clinton's treated the Secret Service agent's and the White House staff as hired help.  I have heard from more than one friend with connections to the White House that the Clinton's, especially Hillary, were hated by the Secret Service and staff.  Bush and his family have treated them as family.

To claim that a President that freed 50 MILLION people from brutal regimes, and initiated democratic governments for them, is opposed to freedom is just about the most ludicrous thing TexasTiger has posted on this forum.

154907[/snapback]

His first duty should be to our freedom, but you blow this off, too. Allard is a conservative Republican, but he can't blow it off any more because people are finally taking notice of what happened in his own state.

The Secret Service did not have the same marching orders under Clinton. I spoke to agents who planned security at such events and they did not seem the least bit lackadasical or unconcerned about protecting his safety, but realized that focusing energy on folks just because they had bumper sticker a supporter might not have was not a good use of their energy.

Your assuming the agents just blew off their orders under Clinton because they didn't like him is absolutely ludicrous, but consistent with the constant rationalizating and convoluting of the truth that you must engage in to maintain your uncritical Bush worship. This behavior by a President, any President, should bother you if truly believe in American freedom.

When Bush was first running for President he wanted to have a critical website taken down. His words at the time: "There ought to be limits to freedom." Yeah, when it makes him look bad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap...112999-idx.html

[DKW 86 7,439]

Clinton had far more dissenters at events

Tex, you know better than this. He rarely talked in front of any dissenters. Bush and the Republican Party stress Clinton's use of it when talking with candidates until this day.

[Auburn85 432]

LOL... that's funny. A colossal stretch, of course, but still funny. 

Rep. Henry Waxman, of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform, also is questioning whether the White House is using taxpayer funds for political purposes.

Yeah, this is all about politics, and nothing to do w/ 'freedom'. Talk to the women of Afghanistan about their freedoms and President Bush.

Stories like this are common place. Protesters who spoke out against Clinton were just 'randomly' auditted too. Such dubious claims about being ejected from this or that after having " done nothing at all " are a dime a dozen, and come from both sides of the aisle.

154901[/snapback]

O'Reilly was auditted 3 times under the Clinton Administration

[TexasTiger 12,996]

Clinton had far more dissenters at events

Tex, you know better than this. He rarely talked in front of any dissenters. Bush and the Republican Party stress Clinton's use of it when talking with candidates until this day.

154913[/snapback]

I've seen Clinton speak with dissenters present that would have never made it in the room under Bush rules. People who vocally disrupt a speaker should properly be removed. T-shirts, hats, lapel pins, campaign buttons, and bumper stickers don't disrupt a thing, except a carefully coreographed image of everybody adoring Dear Leader.

Like the new picture in your sig, btw.

[Auburn85 432]

Was Clinton ever jeered at a State of the Union?

Was a so- called documentary ever released in time to try to dethrone him from the presidency?

[Ranger12 46]

TT, your statement is now the dumbest thing you have ever said. You talk about Bush being against freedom, but you liberals are the worst at trying to censor someone if they don't agree with your views. Remember all those comments from the liberal Hollywood elite and media that basicially said that the people that live in the red states are stupid? Could somebody please re-post all those comments? It was the liberal elite that whined because they did not get their way with the election and now they make ignorant comments like you just did. Get over it. Your party lost. Bush is our President. You may not like his politics to be stoop as low as to say he is against freedom shows how selfish and ignorant liberals can be. I guess you are also one of those that believe that Bush planned 9/11 just so he would have an excuse to go to war.

[TexasTiger 12,996]

TT, your statement is now the dumbest thing you have ever said. You talk about Bush being against freedom, but you liberals are the worst at trying to censor someone if they don't agree with your views. Remember all those comments from the liberal Hollywood elite and media that basicially said that the people that live in the red states are stupid? Could somebody please re-post all those comments? It was the liberal elite that whined because they did not get their way with the election and now they make ignorant comments like you just did. Get over it. Your party lost. Bush is our President. You may not like his politics to be stoop as low as to say he is against freedom shows how selfish and ignorant liberals can be. I guess you are also one of those that believe that Bush planned 9/11 just so he would have an excuse to go to war.

155029[/snapback]

Ah, Ranger. If I were to try to rank your comments based on which was most stupid, I couldn't get anything else done. I've never tried to censor anyone. Some libruls said red staters were stoopid, huh? And you've always been so respectful to those with different points of view. Like this post now. You cannot tolerate any criticism of Bush. He's your God. You worship him. As Bush once said himself, "There ought to be limits to freedom." Well, there are, of course, but he was talking in reference to someone poking fun at him. Yes, he's not a big fan of freedom. He likes talking about and he doesn't mind sending someone else's kid to die for it, but he's not for anything that offends him or questions him.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Bush is the most freedom-hating President we have ever had. He loves to talk about freedom being on the march, but doesn't believe Americans who disagree with him have basic rights. This should disturb any freedom-loving American. Blowhard hypocrites, on the other hand, won't give a damn.

Oh yeah? How quickly you forget, blowhard hypocrite .....

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

All you have to show for yourself is simplistic, petty, blind rage for President Bush, all stemming from the basic fact that you LOST.....nothing more.

" What can men do against such reckless hate?" - Theoden King

Well, there is one thing we can do...keep the fanatical Left wingers out of power, for starters!

[TexasTiger 12,996]

Bush is the most freedom-hating President we have ever had. He loves to talk about freedom being on the march, but doesn't believe Americans who disagree with him have basic rights. This should disturb any freedom-loving American. Blowhard hypocrites, on the other hand, won't give a damn.

Oh yeah? How quickly you forget, blowhard hypocrite .....

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." [President Bill Clinton, 'USA Today' March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

All you have to show for yourself is simplistic, petty, blind rage for President Bush, all stemming from the basic fact that you LOST.....nothing more.

" What can men do against such reckless hate?" - Theoden King

Well, there is one thing we can do...keep the fanatical Left wingers out of power, for starters!

155253[/snapback]

Face it, the only thing we've been able to firmly establish on this board lately is that you're a freedom-hating Stalinist.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Face it, the only thing we've been able to firmly establish on this board lately is that you're a freedom-hating Stalinist.

I know you are, but what am I ?

[TexasTiger 12,996]

And even though you may disagree with the quote in the larger context of discussing the Brady Bill, it is still pretty misleading to excerpt it the way you have:

I think -- you know, we can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles -- it's something I strongly support -- we can't be so fixated on that that we are unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation -- no other nations -- has permitted to exist. And at some point I still hope that the leadership of the National Rifle Association will go back to doing what it did when I was a boy and which made me want to be a lifetime member because they put out valuable information about hunting and marksmanship and safe use of guns. But just to know of the conditions we face today in a lot of our cities and other places in this country and the enormous threat to public safety is amazing.

... I had my own encounters back home in Arkansas, and I just

hope to be able to pass the Brady bill and do some other sensible

things that do not unduly infringe on the right of the law-

abiding citizen to keep and bear arms, but will help make these

children's future safer.  And I think we ought to do that.

     

      Q  Do you think that the NRA's contributing to

that threat that you just talked about because it is opposing

these gun control measures?

     

      THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don't want to get into

character.  I think that it is an error for them to oppose every

attempt to bring some safety and some rationality into the way we

handle some of the most serious criminal problems we have.  And

these things do not unduly affect the right to keep and bear

arms.  It's not going to kill anybody to wait a couple of days to

get a handgun while we do a background check on somebody that

wants to buy a gun. 

     

      I have a lot of -- I have personal experience with

this.  I live in a state where half the people have a hunting or

a fishing license.  I know somebody who once sold a weapon to a

person who went out and killed a bunch of people because he was

an escapee from a mental hospital.  And the guy liked to never

got over it.  And if he had just had a law where he was supposed

to wait two or three days to check, they would have found that

out. 

     

      That is a -- I know that happens.  I don't believe

that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semiautomatic

or an automatic weapon -- built only for the purpose of killing

people -- in order to protect the right of Americans to hunt and

to practice marksmanship and to be secure in their own homes and

own a weapon to be secure.  I just don't believe that. 

     

      So I hope that is a debate that will continue.  And

I think, as I said, what Governor Florio did and what Governor

Wilder did, I think will contribute to Americans facing this and

trying to reconcile our absolute obligation under the

Constitution to give people the right to handle a firearm

responsibly and our obligation to try to preserve peace and keep

these kids alive in our cities.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/archives/whiteh...--Nat-Serv-Vols

[BamaGrad03 0]

Seems to me calling Bush anti freedom is quite ironic...being that we are fresh of an election where we saw the democratic representative try to get a book censored.

[Tiger Al 0]

And even though you may disagree with the quote in the larger context of discussing the Brady Bill, it is still pretty misleading to excerpt it the way you have:

155256[/snapback]

Of course it's misleading...that's the intent.

[WarTim 3,457]

If you supported john "teddy-hitlary" kerry, you supported a lyin', liberal, commy lovin' , loser.

Ahhh, now I feel better.

[Tiger Al 0]

If you supported john "teddy-hitlary" kerry, you supported a lyin', liberal, commy lovin' , loser.

Ahhh, now I feel better. 

155364[/snapback]

Wait, you forgot to tell us to **** ourselves.

[CCTAU 3,338]

Once again...

Point NOT made, point NOT taken.

Spaghetti's not done yet. Throw again.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Of course it's misleading...that's the intent.

Not misleading at all....it's an honest look into the heart of Bill Clinton. Of course, there's nothing misleading about " Conservative sites Stalin as model" , now is there?

[Tiger Al 0]

Of course it's misleading...that's the intent.

Not misleading at all....it's an honest look into the heart of Bill Clinton. Of course, there's nothing misleading about " Conservative sites Stalin as model" , now is there?

155429[/snapback]

Then you must agree that, "There ought to be limitations to freedom", is an honest look into the heart of George W. Bush, too. Am I wrong?

[AURaptor 1,126]

Then you must agree that, "There ought to be limitations to freedom", is an honest look into the heart of George W. Bush, too. Am I wrong?

Sure, freedoms should extend only as far as they don't interfere w/ the freedoms of others. But that's another discussion.

[Tiger Al 0]

Then you must agree that, "There ought to be limitations to freedom", is an honest look into the heart of George W. Bush, too. Am I wrong?

Sure, freedoms should extend only as far as they don't interfere w/ the freedoms of others. But that's another discussion.

155461[/snapback]

So, within the context of a broader idea, limitations to freedom are good. Then, what's wrong with what Clinton said, when taken within the context in which he said it?

[AURaptor 1,126]

You're comparing 2 unlike things here. Sure, there is the issue of 'context', but it's hard to hold one up as a banner for/against the other. As I was going down this slippery slope of responding to your post w/ an example from another unrelated one, I'll stop. The 'point' of what ever is being discussed, I sense, is quickly blurring out of recognition.