free speech...my @$$

[emad]

read this and tell me it's not infuriating

The man was arrested because he was peacefully protesting? people being barred from protesting in certain public areas? what happened to the free speech amendment?!?!?!? I hope bush doesn't get re-elected...just so i can go back and visit new york safely. Looking at his opposition, i'm not sure what will happen. Gore won't go against him because nobody wants to lead after all the damages bush has already caused.

also...the whole jessica lynch thing. that bothered me simply because of how much the media/government overdid everything. yes, she did go through hell, but what about all the other soldiers? to top that, the media refuses to let her say her own story. The government overstated everything that happened to her apparently (not to mention shooting at her ambulance) - link

Lynch now questions why her rescue was filmed: 'They used me to symbolise all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed it, or why they say these things.'

more reasons never to trust the news in times of "war"
(btw, how in the hell is a one sided battle called a war?)

 

[Solid Fro]

What do you mean by "I hope bush doesn't get re-elected...just so i can go back and visit new york safely"? I don't understand that logic.

I agree that protesters should not be barred from certain public areas, but I can also see that those protesters can be a security risk. Most are peaceful, some aren't. That can be a risk to the President, the public, and you.

I don't know how you went from protesting to Bush bashing in one paragraph. I'm not sure Gore wants to run with 9 democratic candidates already in the race, nor in 2008 because of Hillary. But, Gore sure does like drive by politics. His speech to moveon dot org members about Bush's failures without any facts is a recent example.

The Jessica Lynch story hasn't bothered me. I think she's getting a fair share. What do you mean the media refuses to say her story? Did you not see the interview on ABC? Oh, you mean the liberal media? Of course they wouldn't let her say anything.

Again, what do you mean by "how in the hell is a one sided battle called a war"? Which war? WWII was one sided, until June 6, 1944.

 

[emad]

ok...umm...i honestly don't know what i was thinking there. hell, i barely remember what i did last nite b/c of my cold meds combined with my allergy stuff...ignore me

 

[milefile]

Your anger over so-called "free Speech Zones" is justified. I sympathize. It's wrong and anti-American.

 

[emad]

Originally posted by Viper Zero
What do you mean by "I hope bush doesn't get re-elected...just so i can go back and visit new york safely"? I don't understand that logic.

Again, what do you mean by "how in the hell is a one sided battle called a war"? Which war? WWII was one sided, until June 6, 1944.

umm ya...i jus figured out what i was thinking there...
i love new york man...but i can't go there anytime soon because of strict control @ the canada/us border...not hard for a muslim to be detained or rejected for bogus reasons.

the one side battle called a war...i meant iraq/afghanistan...i think...

 

[TurboSmoke]

Bush *spit* is visiting the UK next week on a state visit....

people here have been told that if they protest they will be tried under new terrorism laws....hows that for freedom of speech?

we cant even demonstrate against the biggest war criminal in the past 50 years....he's hugely unpopular here and is not wanted....hopefully muppet Blair *spit* will go back with him when he leaves...

but treating your own people as terrorists makes me sick....

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
Bush... the biggest war criminal in the past 50 years....

I don't care for Bush. We've had better. We've had worse. But this 'war criminal' stuff is such nonsense. Pol Pot is a war criminal. Idi Amin is a war criminal. Try to understand a little about what the words mean before you start flinging it around like the latest catch-phrase.


///M-Spec

 

[Danoff]

Bush *spit* is visiting the UK next week on a state visit....

people here have been told that if they protest they will be tried under new terrorism laws....hows that for freedom of speech?

we cant even demonstrate against the biggest war criminal in the past 50 years....he's hugely unpopular here and is not wanted....hopefully muppet Blair *spit* will go back with him when he leaves...

but treating your own people as terrorists makes me sick....

Wouldn't it be up to the leaders in scotland whether you're allowed to protest?

 

[TurboSmoke]

Originally posted by danoff
Wouldn't it be up to the leaders in scotland whether you're allowed to protest?

He's not visiting Scotland...

my point is that in a free country such as this...the UK, we are not allowed to protest in this instance against what we feel is dishonest....

i feel that there will be a major demonstration....people are ignoring wha the government say and there is going to be the biggest protest against a foreign head of state in the history or our country....

by ignoring the UN and going to war without international backing, Bush is a war criminal by defintion.....you can take him anyway you want but he is technically a war criminal.....according to senior international affairs polititians in this country he should be tried for these crimes as well as the ones currently being committed contraviening the geneva convention at guantanamo bay...

 

[TurboSmoke]

i aint america bashing....

its just whats on the news here....relaying it to those who dont have access....

 

[Danoff]

He's not visiting Scotland...

my point is that in a free country such as this...the UK, we are not allowed to protest in this instance against what we feel is dishonest....

i feel that there will be a major demonstration....people are ignoring wha the government say and there is going to be the biggest protest against a foreign head of state in the history or our country....

um... the UK is socialist. That would be, um, not free.

by ignoring the UN and going to war without international backing, Bush is a war criminal by defintion.....you can take him anyway you want but he is technically a war criminal.....according to senior international affairs polititians in this country he should be tried for these crimes as well as the ones currently being committed contraviening the geneva convention at guantanamo bay...

Nope, there UN resolution authorizing force to enforce the demands on Iraq. Pay attention to current affairs for a change.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke
..by ignoring the UN and going to war without international backing, Bush is a war criminal by defintion.....you can take him anyway you want but he is technically a war criminal.....according to senior international affairs polititians in this country he should be tried for these crimes as well as the ones currently being committed contraviening the geneva convention at guantanamo bay...

It's okay to be technical. I can be technical too. Iraq has violated on numerous occasions the terms of the cease fire signed at the conclusion of Gulf War I... so technically speaking, the United States was still at war with Iraq when we invaded.

The Geneva Conventions concerns treatment of enemy prisoners of war. In order for a detainee to be a prisoner of war, he must first be classified as a combatant. Since a terrorist or suspected terrorist-- by virtue of not representing a soverign nation by wearing a uniform, or observing rules of warfare regarding the targeting of civilians-- displays none of the qualities of a combatant, he is not eligible to be protected by the Geneva Conventions.


///M-Spec

 

[Danoff]

Gore won't go against him because nobody wants to lead after all the damages bush has already caused.

I assure you, there is no shortage of people who would love to take Bush's place.

As to the article, if it is true the courts should take care of it.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff


As to the article, if it is true the courts should take care of it.

As the Supreme Court has decided to regarding Camp X-Ray.

 

[Danoff]

As the Supreme Court has decided to regarding Camp X-Ray.

The who? Where? Post a link please.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by milefile
As the Supreme Court has decided to regarding Camp X-Ray.

I missed it. What did they decide?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by emad

The man was arrested because he was peacefully protesting? people being barred from protesting in certain public areas?

Good. People need to learn to keep their opinions to themselves. Why the hell do I care what they have to say? Do they actually think they're going to change the president's mind by holding a sign in front of his motorcade? If it was up to me, they'd all be arrested and sent to Tristan da Cunha.

 

[emad]

Originally posted by M5Power


Good. People need to learn to keep their opinions to themselves. Why the hell do I care what they have to say? Do they actually think they're going to change the president's mind by holding a sign in front of his motorcade? If it was up to me, they'd all be arrested and sent to Tristan da Cunha. [/B]

they won't change HIS mind, but they might affect some of the people that will potentially make the mistake of voting for him...again

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by milefile
As the Supreme Court has decided to regarding Camp X-Ray.

Oh. ie, Look into the legality of the existance of it.

I thought you knew something we didn't.


///M-Spec

 

[gt4]

no one else has really mentioned it but i want to complain about the whole jessica lynch thing. now im not exactly up to date on the fcats so i could be completely wrong but werent there 7 others who were POW's? why havent i even heard there names. i read somewhere that there was an african american women who is only recieving 30% of her medical costs and jessica lynch is recieving 80%. i think that the whole jessica lynch thing was blown way out of proportion because shes a woman.

 

[emad]

you won't learn their names, you will never be told how many died or how many got injured. the simple reason is that if people find out, they might stop supporting the whole thing

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke


we cant even demonstrate against the biggest war criminal in the past 50 years....he's hugely unpopular here and is not wanted....

This statement confuses me.....

Just yesterday on the Radio,.... Bush was asked about how he felt about the fact that there were going to be 10's of thousands of people in the streets protesting him,.... he stated that "He was pleased to know he was visiting a country where the people were allowed to speak their minds freely"



so,... which is it? Is Bush just being his idiotic self and mis-interpreting what really goes on over there,... or, is smoke turbo-ing from the butt of the original poster?

 

[TurboSmoke]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
This statement confuses me.....

Just yesterday on the Radio,.... Bush was asked about how he felt about the fact that there were going to be 10's of thousands of people in the streets protesting him,.... he stated that "He was pleased to know he was visiting a country where the people were allowed to speak their minds freely"



so,... which is it? Is Bush just being his idiotic self and mis-interpreting what really goes on over there,... or, is smoke turbo-ing from the butt of the original poster?

youve taken the quote out of contaxt so of course it is confusing...

people here have been told that if they protest they will be tried under new terrorism laws....hows that for freedom of speech?

the government is taking tha hard line stance against protestors....yes, were allowed to peacefully protest but that never done us much good in the past....

if some one throws an egg or shouts abuse, they will be tired under anti terror laws....rather than criminal assault or breach of the peace...thats the point red eye racer...

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by TurboSmoke


if some one throws an egg or shouts abuse, they will be tired under anti terror laws

If someone throws an egg or shouts abuse in public here your tried for either littering, assult, or lewd (sp?) public behavior.

We have the right to PEACEFULLY DEMONSTRATE,.... of course they wont want you people protesting if your idea of a protest is riot....

 

[Red Eye Racer]

does anyone from the UK have a reply for the above?

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer

Just yesterday on the Radio,.... Bush was asked about how he felt about the fact that there were going to be 10's of thousands of people in the streets protesting him,.... he stated that "He was pleased to know he was visiting a country where the people were allowed to speak their minds freely"

Ha - that isn't the half of it. I watched that interview live, and he made that statement directly after stating that the Democrats needed to basically shut up in the senate and bring his remaining judicial nominees to a vote.

Evidently, British people are allowed to speak their minds, but not senate Democrats.

 

[Danoff]

Evidently, British people are allowed to speak their minds, but not senate Democrats.

The senate democrats are play party politics with their filibusters to a degree that has not been seen in American politics. They are bringing government productivity (appointing judges) to new lows.

 

[gt4]

i agree with them because we all know that if bushes appointees are made judges they will be trying to overturn many of the prior decisions like abortion

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by danoff
The senate democrats are play party politics with their filibusters to a degree that has not been seen in American politics. They are bringing government productivity (appointing judges) to new lows.

Thanks - if not for you, I wouldn't get my weekly dose of far-right spin.

i agree with them because we all know that if bushes appointees are made judges they will be trying to overturn many of the prior decisions like abortion

If you don't know what's going on, yet you choose to speak anyway, I refer you to the Gran Turismo Forums at granturismo.com and wish you the best of luck there.

 

[Danoff]

Thanks - if not for you, I wouldn't get my weekly dose of far-right spin.

Just calling it the way I see it. Appointing judges should fundamentally not be about party politics. Judges shouldn't even have party affiliation.