White House has book on stifling protest

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Aug 27, 2007.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    You just knew they had something like this someplace:

    Detroit News

    What the article omits is something Keith Olbermann said last night on his live special: that the book also recommends planting Bush supporters in front of protest groups and having them shout things like, "USA! USA! USA!"

    Presumably to demonstrate that Republicans know how to spell the name of their country.
     
  2. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #2
    all of this is disturbing.
    protest is okay. just not in front of Bush.
    is his ego that sensitive?
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    His daddy was the same way. Two friends of mine were "detained" while mentioning jokingly in a Taco Bell that somebody should "take care of" H.W., who was in town at the time. Two S.S. guys heard them and hauled them off to the police station for questioning. They got to stay overnight. What country do we live in again?
     
  4. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #4
    One that has just enough whackjobs trying to make a name for themselves that the secret service can't afford to take chances.
     
  5. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #5
    What the he11 does that have to do with anything. This has nothing to do with issues of safety and you know it.
     
  6. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #6
    do you ever stay on topic, or do you just change the subject when you have nothing to contribute?

    see my comments above.
     
  7. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #7
    Directions on assembling crowds certainly does have a lot to do with it. I'm guessing you're not in law enforcement.
     
  8. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #8
    I'm guessing you're not either.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    There's a huge difference between two giggling college students in a Taco Bell and someone like Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden. If the S.S. can't tell the difference, there's a problem.
     
  10. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #10
    The manual is not intended for the secret service as you implied in your earlier post... The manual is for the Presidential Advance Team. As the manual itself states:

    link to the manual: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/freespeech/presidential_advance_manual.pdf

    "If the demonstrators appear to be a security threat notify the Secret Service immediately. If demonstrates appear likely to cause only a political disruption it is the Advance person's responsibility to take appropriate action."

    Ergo, the guidelines for the Advance team, which are in the Advance Manual we are discussing, are to deal with potential political disruption. Noone is arguing that the secret service must manage crowds for safety reasons, but that is not what this document is about.
     
  11. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #11
    I was commenting on the "Among other things, any event must be open only to those with tickets tightly controlled by organizers. Those entering must be screened in case they are hiding secret signs. "and "to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in the view of the event site or motorcade route." parts, but if you thought I was referring to the Taco Bell part, then er....ok.
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    OK, what has protecting the President from seeing or hearing any dissent got to do with his physical security?
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    I thought Bush was so tough that criticism didn't bother him. Yet he can't stand to see or hear protesters, nor apparently can he take any critique of his couture...
     
  14. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #14
    Given that you responded to and quoted my post, yep- that's what I thought you were referring to. I don't see how I could misinterpret that, but er...OK.
     
  15. dswoodley macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #15
    Emotional distress leads to physical stress. We can't have that now, can we?
     
  16. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #16
    Why is making a circus out of every appearance by the POTUS important to you? There's a time, a place and a method to achieve everything citizens might want when it comes to disagreement with a given administration.

    No president in recent memory has done an about face on a given issue because some idiot stick popped up with a sign, a teeshirt or a verbal outburst anyway.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    The public appearances right now are a circus. That fact that everyone is screened and has to agree with the President in order to attend a public event is a farce- nothing more than propaganda. These staged speaking events are ridiculous. Anyone should absolutely be able to show up and express dissent- that's supposed to be our right as Americans.
     
  18. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #18
    By what paragraph in your beleaguered Constitution is the right of citizens to approach their President with grievances or contrary views so circumscribed?

    So everyone who disagrees with your President is an idiot? How convenient.
     
  19. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
  20. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #20
    You mean poll numbers. Don't make him appear studlier than he thinks he is. ;)

    Keith Olbermann addressed that again tonight, Bush's need to surround himself not with experienced people or those who bring fresh ideas, but with those who are old buddies and admirers, those who keep telling him, "You're the greatest."

    Veering back to the topic at hand, this would imply an extremely insecure person -- not surprising, given his history of non-accomplishment. You would think that a person as filled with blissful ignorance and arrogance as Bush would be able to take protesters, but he apparently does not suffer well people who disagree with him.

    Good rule of thumb: if you're doing badly enough you have to stifle protesters and fake your support, you're a loser.
     
  21. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #21
    You're dodging a direct question. And we all know why. You should just admit that you errored by arriving at a hasty conclusion before actually reading the article or the manual. That much is at least apparent based on your first post in this thread. Or perhaps you were just being flippant and wanted to get a rise out of people. Honestly, I dunno anymore.

    What exactly would be the proper time, place and method for people to address their grievances with the president or other elected public official, in your opinion? Do you feel it's a wasted effort on the part of the individual to express her or his grievances? Do you feel people ought to waive their constitutional rights because the methods might seem impractical? Do you think there is strength in numbers?

    I think public events and forums (as mentioned in the article, for example) are perfectly reasonable settings to peacefully voice one's concerns, should they weigh heavily enough. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration doesn't agree and has clearly launched an assault against the First Amendment. The only thing which could possibly be worse is simply repealing the First Amendment.
     
  22. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #22
    Right there in the First Amendment, the right peaceably assemble and address grievances to the government. But this is something Bush has been doing for awhile now. Just another in a long line of perception of security over rights and freedoms. And yet still, people defend. Maybe if he didn't suck so much, if he didn't give us reasons to protest (whether it changes his mind or not is not the issue), there wouldn't be a need to silence those who want to protest. Which, don't be naive, they are trying to silence.

    Let's see how people like SL feel if someone like Hillary tried to do this and they wanted to protest. Guessing the story would be different. Then they would be patriots, exercising their freedoms responsibly. While the rest of us would be saying the same things we are now because we know it's wrong no matter who's in charge.

    For the record, this is a bad thing, you'd think for obvious reasons.
     
  23. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #23
    And to some people in this forum, that probably directly translates to disrupting every public appearance with their signs and disruptive behavior. It doesn't fit the definition of peaceably to me.
     
  24. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #24
    Y'all are trying to say that the typical Bush protest is an out-of-control riot?

    Marching with signs and merely shouting seem like a peaceable way to protest to me.
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    One would think. Unfortunately some people in this forum think people should not have that right.
     

Share This Page