Tea Party activist confronts Obama on Biden calling them terrorists.

[bigrebnc1775]

Did you even read the article you cite? It specifically says they were arrested for not obeying security restrictions. It says nothing about them being arrested for wearing t-shirts. The only people claiming this are the unhinged loons who were arrested.

That has as much credibility as me getting a DUI and then claiming it was because I was wearing white Nike's.

Good grief.

El surprise. The stories of the security detail don't jibe with the people arrested. Considering that there was obviously a pattern of summarily removing perceived dissenters from events where Bush was going to speak, I think it's probably safe to assume that security details all across the country were instructed to remove anyone, regardless of how well-behaved they were, if they had signs or t-shirts critical of Bush and/or his policies.

Additionally, considering the fact that the people arrested were not prosecuted (probably due to a complete lack of evidence), it's not a stretch to believe THEIR stories in the least.

so now your fact is nothing more than paranoid assumption on your part.

Got it.

Are you surprised?

 

[Sallow]

How about "get their heads blown off for the President's amusement"?

Would that fit?

You can pretend it was never said if it makes it easier for you to call other Americans terrorists, though...

Bump...

Yes this was said by a democratic politician....

here is the link:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM]Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Outrageous Remarks on House Floor - YouTube[/ame]

Your link doesn't work but in any case..

What President Bush did in Iraq was a crime and far beyond outrageous.

He should have been impeach and removed from office.

Somebody standing up and saying Bush's fuck ups were bad isn't what I was alluding to, either.

 

[Jarhead]

Bump...

Yes this was said by a democratic politician....

here is the link:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsGaNR9dVPM]Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Outrageous Remarks on House Floor - YouTube[/ame]

Your link doesn't work but in any case..

What President Bush did in Iraq was a crime and far beyond outrageous.

He should have been impeach and removed from office.

Somebody standing up and saying Bush's fuck ups were bad isn't what I was alluding to, either.

excuse me...he claimed that people were having heads blown off for the amusement of the President.

He did not simply say "the war is wrong"

He claimed Bush was AMUSED by the deaths of people.

But please....offer him a pass you fucking partisan hypocrite.

 

[G.T.]

lol Sallow you cray-see, sir.

 

[oreo]

Obama talked to the guy?

Back when Bush 43 was president, people who weren't supporters would be removed and subsequently arrested just for wearing t-shirts critical of the war. Hell, they didn't even get to say a word.

And Bush? He wouldn't even meet with Cindy Sheehan when she was camped out on the road down in Texas. Then Bush would just ride by her ensconced in his preidential limosine motorcade.

At least Obama has some personal moxie.

And how many American citizens did Bush refer to as terrorists--because they disagreed with his policies?--- What vile statements did he make of Cindy Sheehan. Answer--NONE.

As the President of the United States you DO NOT attack or make fun of average--law abiding--taxpaying citizens--without expecting major repercussions from it.

This administration and democrats did it in 2009 to the tea party movement in this country--and we all witnessed what happened to them in November 2010. Now while you left-wing nut cases are cheering on politicians who join in here--THE OVERWHELMING majority of this country that includes democrats--republicans and independents--whom are also a large part of the tea party movement in this country get a real foul taste in their mouths over this.



This is quite a bit larger than Cindy Sheehan's group--



And they did it too--and plan on doing it again in 2012.

 

[Mustang]

Did you even read the article you cite? It specifically says they were arrested for not obeying security restrictions. It says nothing about them being arrested for wearing t-shirts. The only people claiming this are the unhinged loons who were arrested.

That has as much credibility as me getting a DUI and then claiming it was because I was wearing white Nike's.

Good grief.

El surprise. The stories of the security detail don't jibe with the people arrested. Considering that there was obviously a pattern of summarily removing perceived dissenters from events where Bush was going to speak, I think it's probably safe to assume that security details all across the country were instructed to remove anyone, regardless of how well-behaved they were, if they had signs or t-shirts critical of Bush and/or his policies.

Additionally, considering the fact that the people arrested were not prosecuted (probably due to a complete lack of evidence), it's not a stretch to believe THEIR stories in the least.

so now your fact is nothing more than paranoid assumption on your part.

Got it.

No, paranoid assumption is the perview of the RW. What >I< see is a complete lack of evidence that these people actually broke any laws or behaved in a way that warranted arrest. That's why they were not prosecuted. One of the women, Christine Nelson, who by the way wasn't just arrested, she was strip searched too. And what does she do for a living? She teaches history and gov't at a middle school in Cedar Rapids. Last time I checked, Cedar Rapids was not a hotbed of radical groups, and female middle school teachers are not threats to national security.

But you defend their arrest, do you? How about if conservative women who worked as middle school teachers were arrested under the same circumstance? Would you be fine with that?

Say yes, and at least you'll appear intellectually consistent even though you'll still look like a fool.

 

[Intense]

It's not just the Aqua Buddha and David Vitter's prostitute, Democratic candidates across the country are closing out the campaign with personal attacks on Republican candidates, sometimes digging up decades-old legal problems.

In one typical example, Democratic ads have transformed Kentucky Republican House candidate Andy Barr into "a convicted criminal" -- complete with images yellow police tape and fuzzy video of crime scenes. Not mentioned is his crime: As a college student 19 years ago, he was caught using a fake ID during spring break.

As you watch this year's ads -- and I've been watching all too many lately -- you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy.

There are, of course, many exceptions, but the overall trend is clear. Democrats are hitting their Republican opponents over past legal transgressions, shady business deals and even speeding tickets. Republicans are hammering Democrats over "Obamacare," Nancy Pelosi and the economy.


A recent study by the Wesleyan Media Project actually quantifies this. They looked at 900,000 airing of political ads this year and concluded: "Democrats are using personal attacks at much higher rates than Republicans and a much higher rate than Democrats in 2008."

Vote 2010 Elections: Democratic Closing Argument: Personal Attacks - ABC News

 

[Intense]

Negativity Update: 2010 Features Similar Rates of Negativity,
But Dems More Likely to Attack Personally
Dems and Reps are Similar in Proportion of Negative Ads, but Dem Strategy Likely Driven by Desire to Draw Attention Away from the Policy Environment
(MIDDLETOWN, CT --) As we reported last week, &#8213;claims that 2010 is the most negative election to date may be premature. In an analysis of close to 900,000 airings from January 1 to October 5, 2010, the Wesleyan Media Project finds that the distribution of positive, negative and contrast ads is comparable to 2008 in proportion, if not in volume.&#8214; In an update to that release, and with a focus on House and Senate races, we continue to find similar rates of negativity. Furthermore, we find that Democrats and Republicans are airing similar proportions of negative (and positive) spots in federal races. However, there is one crucial difference: Democrats are using personal attacks at much higher rates than Republicans and a much higher rate than Democrats in 2008.
Table 1 shows the percentage of attack ads (ads focusing only on the opposing candidate) that are focused on candidate characteristics, issues of public policy, or a mixture of both. (Breakdowns in this way for contrast and promotional spots are available in the downloadable excel file.) In 2010, pro-Democratic ad sponsors focused on the personal characteristics of Republican candidates in 21% of their attack ads. This is up from the 12% of Democratic attack ads in 2008 that were focused on personal characteristics. Republicans have mentioned candidate characteristics in 11 percent of their attack ads this year. &#8213;The use of personal attacks actually makes sense for the Democrats this year,&#8214; said Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project and associate professor of government at Bowdoin College. &#8213;The issue environment does not really favor them, in that many Obama policies are unpopular, so many Democrats are choosing to point out the personal foibles of their opponents.&#8214;

http://election-ad.research.wesleyan.edu/files/2010/10/WesMediaProject_ReleaseTone_20101026.pdf

 

[Sallow]

here is the link:

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) Outrageous Remarks on House Floor - YouTube

Your link doesn't work but in any case..

What President Bush did in Iraq was a crime and far beyond outrageous.

He should have been impeach and removed from office.

Somebody standing up and saying Bush's fuck ups were bad isn't what I was alluding to, either.

excuse me...he claimed that people were having heads blown off for the amusement of the President.

He did not simply say "the war is wrong"

He claimed Bush was AMUSED by the deaths of people.

But please....offer him a pass you fucking partisan hypocrite.

Yeah..

What he should have done is:

Stark:

These are the following articles of impeachment for George W. Bush:

 

[Sallow]

It's not just the Aqua Buddha and David Vitter's prostitute, Democratic candidates across the country are closing out the campaign with personal attacks on Republican candidates, sometimes digging up decades-old legal problems.

In one typical example, Democratic ads have transformed Kentucky Republican House candidate Andy Barr into "a convicted criminal" -- complete with images yellow police tape and fuzzy video of crime scenes. Not mentioned is his crime: As a college student 19 years ago, he was caught using a fake ID during spring break.

As you watch this year's ads -- and I've been watching all too many lately -- you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy.

There are, of course, many exceptions, but the overall trend is clear. Democrats are hitting their Republican opponents over past legal transgressions, shady business deals and even speeding tickets. Republicans are hammering Democrats over "Obamacare," Nancy Pelosi and the economy.


A recent study by the Wesleyan Media Project actually quantifies this. They looked at 900,000 airing of political ads this year and concluded: "Democrats are using personal attacks at much higher rates than Republicans and a much higher rate than Democrats in 2008."

Vote 2010 Elections: Democratic Closing Argument: Personal Attacks - ABC News

Finally.

 

[bodecea]

Poor baby. He probably needs a tissue and a hot dog

Your photobucket account must be a pedophile's dream......just sayin'

Nice...

Stay classy...

Did you see the pic, Doc? I was expressing concern.

 

[Intense]

It's not just the Aqua Buddha and David Vitter's prostitute, Democratic candidates across the country are closing out the campaign with personal attacks on Republican candidates, sometimes digging up decades-old legal problems.

In one typical example, Democratic ads have transformed Kentucky Republican House candidate Andy Barr into "a convicted criminal" -- complete with images yellow police tape and fuzzy video of crime scenes. Not mentioned is his crime: As a college student 19 years ago, he was caught using a fake ID during spring break.

As you watch this year's ads -- and I've been watching all too many lately -- you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy.

There are, of course, many exceptions, but the overall trend is clear. Democrats are hitting their Republican opponents over past legal transgressions, shady business deals and even speeding tickets. Republicans are hammering Democrats over "Obamacare," Nancy Pelosi and the economy.


A recent study by the Wesleyan Media Project actually quantifies this. They looked at 900,000 airing of political ads this year and concluded: "Democrats are using personal attacks at much higher rates than Republicans and a much higher rate than Democrats in 2008."

Vote 2010 Elections: Democratic Closing Argument: Personal Attacks - ABC News

Finally.

My posts this morning were backed up with links too. You might have missed them.

 

[Jarhead]

Your link doesn't work but in any case..

What President Bush did in Iraq was a crime and far beyond outrageous.

He should have been impeach and removed from office.

Somebody standing up and saying Bush's fuck ups were bad isn't what I was alluding to, either.

excuse me...he claimed that people were having heads blown off for the amusement of the President.

He did not simply say "the war is wrong"

He claimed Bush was AMUSED by the deaths of people.

But please....offer him a pass you fucking partisan hypocrite.

Yeah..

What he should have done is:

Stark:

These are the following articles of impeachment for George W. Bush:

hey...such would have been a repectable act of a cogressman.

Insted, he called the president of the united states a man that ius amused by people dying.

And you still seem to give him a pass.

Whatever.....

 

[bodecea]

lol @ house man. "stay classy" @ bodecea and ignore the dick in obama's mouth the poster she's referring to posted. hows that wash, lol

And that is a child....thus my concern.

 

[bodecea]

lol @ house man. "stay classy" @ bodecea and ignore the dick in obama's mouth the poster she's referring to posted. hows that wash, lol

What "dick in 0bama's mouth" comment?

I don't have the desire to wade through pages of commentary, but it wasn't on the wone I quoted...

Uh huh.....

 

[bodecea]

Americans are more and more becoming angry with the big government mind set of those people who are out of touch with everyday American lives. obama just happen to be the one who really woke people up. You idiots should have went with clinton she would have pushed her agenda a little less agressive, and you might would have gotten what you want with a sleeping America. I say thanks for waking the people of this country.

What an incredible coincidence.....

 

[Sallow]

excuse me...he claimed that people were having heads blown off for the amusement of the President.

He did not simply say "the war is wrong"

He claimed Bush was AMUSED by the deaths of people.

But please....offer him a pass you fucking partisan hypocrite.

Yeah..

What he should have done is:

Stark:

These are the following articles of impeachment for George W. Bush:

hey...such would have been a repectable act of a cogressman.

Insted, he called the president of the united states a man that ius amused by people dying.

And you still seem to give him a pass.

Whatever.....

Well to be honest..I don't think Bush was amused.

I just think he couldn't care less.

Really, like most CEOs, they don't sweat that sort of stuff.

I don't think Bush was a "bad" guy..but this sort of thing wasn't part of his make up.

 

[Intense]

El surprise. The stories of the security detail don't jibe with the people arrested. Considering that there was obviously a pattern of summarily removing perceived dissenters from events where Bush was going to speak, I think it's probably safe to assume that security details all across the country were instructed to remove anyone, regardless of how well-behaved they were, if they had signs or t-shirts critical of Bush and/or his policies.

Additionally, considering the fact that the people arrested were not prosecuted (probably due to a complete lack of evidence), it's not a stretch to believe THEIR stories in the least.

so now your fact is nothing more than paranoid assumption on your part.

Got it.

No, paranoid assumption is the perview of the RW. What >I< see is a complete lack of evidence that these people actually broke any laws or behaved in a way that warranted arrest. That's why they were not prosecuted. One of the women, Christine Nelson, who by the way wasn't just arrested, she was strip searched too. And what does she do for a living? She teaches history and gov't at a middle school in Cedar Rapids. Last time I checked, Cedar Rapids was not a hotbed of radical groups, and female middle school teachers are not threats to national security.

But you defend their arrest, do you? How about if conservative women who worked as middle school teachers were arrested under the same circumstance? Would you be fine with that?

Say yes, and at least you'll appear intellectually consistent even though you'll still look like a fool.

In Cedar Rapids, McCabe and Nelson are suing three unnamed Secret Service agents, the Iowa State Patrol and two county sheriff deputies who took part in their arrest. Nelson and McCabe, who now lives in Memphis, accuse law enforcement of violating their right to free speech, assembly and equal protection.

The two women say they were political novices, inexperienced at protest and unprepared for what happened on Sept. 3, 2004.

Soon after arriving at Noelridge Park, a sprawling urban playground dotted with softball diamonds and a public pool, McCabe and Nelson were approached by Secret Service agents in polo shirts and Bermuda shorts. They were told that the Republicans had rented the park and they would have to move because the sidewalk was now considered private property.

McCabe and Nelson say they complied, but moments later were again told to move, this time across the street. After being told to move a third time, Nelson asked why she was being singled out while so many others nearby, including those holding buckets for campaign donations, were ignored. In response, she says, they were arrested.

They were charged with criminal trespass, but the charges were later dropped.

A spokesman for the Secret Service declined to comment on pending litigation or answer questions on security policy for presidential events. White House spokesman Alex Conant also declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

But Justice Department lawyers, in documents filed recently in federal court in Cedar Rapids, outline security at the rally and defend the Secret Service agents' actions.

They contend the GOP obtained exclusive rights to use the park and that donation takers were ignored because they were an authorized part of the event. They also say McCabe and Nelson were disobedient, repeatedly refusing agents' orders to move.

"At no time did any political message expressed by the two women play any role in how (the agents) treated them," they wrote. "All individuals ... subject to security restrictions either complied with the security restrictions or were arrested for refusing to comply."

Defenders say stricter policies are a response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a small price for ensuring the safety of a world leader in an era of heightened suspicion and uncertainty.

USATODAY.com - Arrested Bush dissenters look to the courts

You might want to consider that the Ladies admitted that they were inexperienced and novice in such matters. Regardless of what side of an issue we are on, it is important at Rallies and Demonstrations to understand what flies and what doesn't. There are always going to be security issues, right of way, obstruction, incitement. It's not always fair, just like a Ref making a bad call, it eventually evens out for the most part.
My point would be to document what is going on and use it later, outside of the event, rather than incite or instigate something that can easily deteriorate into something where people get hurt or arrested. Use some incite is all I'm saying.

 

[Intense]

Yeah..

What he should have done is:

Stark:

These are the following articles of impeachment for George W. Bush:

hey...such would have been a repectable act of a cogressman.

Insted, he called the president of the united states a man that ius amused by people dying.

And you still seem to give him a pass.

Whatever.....

Well to be honest..I don't think Bush was amused.

I just think he couldn't care less.

Really, like most CEOs, they don't sweat that sort of stuff.

I don't think Bush was a "bad" guy..but this sort of thing wasn't part of his make up.

One really good thing about Bush, was that he just let the personal attacks go, he tried really hard to not get offended or upset, no matter how harsh the personal attack, nor did he let it effect his judgement.

 

[Sallow]

hey...such would have been a repectable act of a cogressman.

Insted, he called the president of the united states a man that ius amused by people dying.

And you still seem to give him a pass.

Whatever.....

Well to be honest..I don't think Bush was amused.

I just think he couldn't care less.

Really, like most CEOs, they don't sweat that sort of stuff.

I don't think Bush was a "bad" guy..but this sort of thing wasn't part of his make up.

One really good thing about Bush, was that he just let the personal attacks go, he tried really hard to not get offended or upset, no matter how harsh the personal attack, nor did he let it effect his judgement.

He was basically attacked by the press..but yeah..he didn't let it get to him. He even handled the shoe throwing thing very well. Great reflexes.