REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

USA: Police State? II

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 06:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6231
PAGE 3 of 4

Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

a bum, leech, and scumbag, all on my dime.
Not true. As usual.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:29 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


The issue with torture is the uncertainty. If there were no uncertianty, then there would be no excuse for torture per se. Is it THIS person, or ANOTHER ? Did they DO this, or NOT ? A KNOWN guilty person isn't being tortured, they're being punished. A person who is KNOWN to be guilty is legally in a different category. That's what I see as a deciding inconsistancy.

So you do agree that my question to Rap and yours to everyone in general are not the same.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:35 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The issue with torture is the uncertainty. If there were no uncertianty, then there would be no excuse for torture. Is it THIS person, or ANOTHER ? Did they DO this, or NOT ? A KNOWN guilty person isn't being tortured, they're being punished. That's what I see as a deciding inconsistancy.

So you do agree that my question and yours are not the same.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."




So you are saying you can only torture an innocent person?

No, I think you are splitting hairs as usual to avoid answering the question.

Personally I don't think torture is ever justified because in the end if you live in a society willing to use torture the point where they consider it "justified" will always move downwards. So in answer to the question I would probably risk the 3000 people in that situation. When it comes to a loved one things get a little hazy. Speaking personally I would probably do it myself, if it would save the loved one but I would expect my society to punish me for that action because if it values its principles it would have to.

See, not that hard.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


A person who is KNOWN to be guilty is legally in a different category. That makes it a different question.

I'll answer my version of the question, but I can't answer yours b/c to accept your version is to accept things which are not true.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:38 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
A person who is KNOWN to be guilty is legally in a different category. That makes it a different question.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."



It does? What about cruel and unusual punishment?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:39 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


That's the question I asked (above). And that's the question I'd be happy to answer if you'll accept it. "The question then becomes - do you approve of cruel and unusual punishment if it means saving lives ? And would your answer change if one of those lives was a member of your family ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:40 AM

FLETCH2


Go ahead.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Cool. My answers are no, and yes. I will do anything I can to protect my family. That was a vow I made at birth, and I always keep my promises.

***************************************************************
Post-edit: that's assuming that there is one exception for that person only. If it becomes blanket - oh, let's just do cruel and unusual for anyone for any reason - then the greater protection is to say no to question #2.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2007 8:44 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Washington Post demands torture for Bush and all NeoCons, Bono video censored for complaining about torture, NY Times reports on Bush Cheney's signed confession ordering torture:

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/piratenewsrss/message/350

24-hour torture kingpin Keifer Sutherland gets 48 days of prison torture - FOR REAL:

www.topix.net/entertainment/2007/10/kiefer-sutherland-pleads-no-contes
t-in-dui-case-to-serve-48-days


Selling torture to the sheeple would make anyone an alcoholic.

Another NeoCon bites the dust.

Torture only works to extort false confessions, according to CIA. Nothing can be trusted when coerced by torture. Real intelligence requires actual investigation.

Yet 10,000s of US citizens have been tortured to death by police state death squads in USA.

Listen and look at what REAL torture looks like, while it KILLS someone:

http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=30961



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


PN

I was answering a highly hypothetical question about some fantasy world - that only punishment of a known guilty person (and only that person) would get information to save exactly 3000 lives, among them my family, and you knew exactly what punishment would elicit the needed information. But that's in that fantasy world.

In real life, as I mentioned above, torture doesn't get useable information. Further, it elicits confessions where there is insufficient evidence - in other words, with all innocent people. Finally, its most useful aspect is keeping people in-line.

In real life - where it counts - I don't EVER approve of torture, nor do I approve of cruel and unusual punishment. I also know that by answering that fantasy question in the way that I did, people will believe the mistaken impression - that I 'approve' of torture, and cruel and unusual punishment - is true.


***************************************************************
Too much nuance for most, I know.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:27 AM

LEADB


Well, there's no way I'm going to get caught up on all the posts while I was feeling bad, but one item I did catch and feel obliged to comment on....
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
With 'free speech' zones ?


What's your problem with free speech? Personally, I'm in favor of free speech...perhaps we differ on this point.
H


Now this could have simply been a point of rhetoric, and if so, just say you were jerking Rue's chain. But in case you were serious, let me ask how you would feel about a 'theoretical' occurrence.
Let's say in 2008 some Democrat manages to make it into the white house, and in the great tradition of learning the worst from one's political enemies, continues the practice that Bush started of having 'free speech zones'. Let's say the new President is going to come to your town, and there's a parade route which he (or she) will be headed down, and lots of folks are going to be there. Let's say the President is advocating strong measures to restrict guns to such a degree you think it might even endanger your possessing one.
You wander up and see tons of folks with signs like 'We love our president' along the edge of the route. You whip out your sign saying "Guns keep our nation safe." A police officer requires you to go to the 'free speech zone', which is about 1/4 mile off the parade route. Later, the news shows the president going down the route with his adulating fans voicing their enthusiasm; not once do the cameras bother to go to the free speech zone with all the 'unhappy signs'.
Would you think that was right? Or in any case, an infringement of your rights?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 12, 2007 7:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Lawsuit: ICE drugging detainees set for deportation
Quote:

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former detainees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement accuse the agency in a lawsuit of forcibly injecting them with psychotropic drugs while trying to shuttle them out of the country during their deportation. One of the drugs in question is the potent anti-psychotic drug Haldol, which is often used to treat schizophrenia or other mental illnesses.
Of course anybody can claim anything, but this sounds similar to how people are "rendered" by the CIA.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 12, 2007 7:25 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
Would you think that was right? Or in any case, an infringement of your rights?


It depends. I'm somewhat familiar with Free Speech Zones having protested protesting at the 2000 Republican Convention. They had literally hundreds of protest groups demanding access. The only way to accomodate everyone AND allow the convention to proceed...as they have every right to, was to establish the zone and give everyone a timeslot to use it.

I was in college back then and sick and tired of all the silly little protests everwhere. Seemed there was so much silly protesting going on that when a truly legitimate protestable issue came up...it got drowned out in the liberal chaos. (I refer everyone to the Peace Parade in New York before the Iraq invasion...).

Anyway my friend and I invented a protest group...the NA against CP. National Association against Civil Protest. We applied for a timeslot and then, for 35 minutes, there was silence in the free speech zone. It made me fee all relavant cause I got a bigger stage and more attention by getting my designated timeslot then I ever would have in a massive crowd of crazy-talkers and lunatics all chanting for different things.

The purpose of Free Speech Zones is to protect speech. At a Presidential campaign rally it allows the candidate to speak, as is their right, and it allows the protestor to protest, as is their right.

I don't see a problem here, although like everything else there is always the potential for abuse...especially by Democrats.

I note for the record about your example of a Democrat getting into the White House in 2008...I assume you meant on a tour or something.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 12, 2007 8:05 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
...

I don't see a problem here, although like everything else there is always the potential for abuse...especially by Democrats.

I note for the record about your example of a Democrat getting into the White House in 2008...I assume you meant on a tour or something.

Thanks for the reply.
I realize these last two barbs are meant for humorous effect, and I will note for the record 'no, that's not what I meant', but it didn't stop me from laughing ;-)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 12, 2007 8:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"The purpose of Free Speech Zones is to protect speech" Yeah, just like "work makes free".

When Bush comes through in a PUBLICLY AVAILABLE motorcade the purpose of a free speech zone 1/4 of a mile away or more for dissenting signs is .... what exactly ? Please explain that to me 'Hero'.

When people show up with opposing t-shirts and are excluded from PUBLICLY AVAILABLE speeches b/c of the t-shirt, the purpose of putting them in a free speech zone or arresting them is ... what exactly ? I'd sure like you to explain that one too, 'Hero'.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 2:53 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
I'd sure like you to explain that one too, 'Hero'.


Free speech does not include the right to disrupt or prevent another from speaking. If its you, the President, and a soapbox in the square...its anything goes. But suppose you organized a rally against the war, lined up music and speakers, and a nice crowd. Then had your speech disrupted by persons opposed to your viewpoint. Then perhaps you'd understand that in a world where people not only oppose your ideas but actively seek to repress them...govt. protection of your rights, but establishing reasonable limits on their efforts to stop you, are...reasonable.

Its the President's event, he has the right to control that event. Its not his responsibility to provide his forum for you to express your message. You can express it all you want...from 1/4 mile away.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 7:37 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


What about a motorcade where there IS no speech given, and therefore, no chance of interruption ? Should people with the 'right' signs be allowed while people with the 'wrong' signs get excluded ?

And being evicted and arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirt ? Whaa ???? Are brown shirts now required ?


***************************************************************
Careful what you say 'Hero' - these have already been adjudicated. You wouldn't want to find yourself on the stupid side of the law.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 8:24 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
What about a motorcade where there IS no speech given, and therefore, no chance of interruption ? Should people with the 'right' signs be allowed while people with the 'wrong' signs get excluded ?

And being evicted and arrested for wearing the wrong T-shirt ? Whaa ???? Are brown shirts now required ?


I've never heard of folk just standing on the side of the road being removed unless there is a security issue.

An eviction is a civil proceeding...I'd suggest you take this issue up with your landlord. I suggest that a person is under no obligation to rent to someone whose politics they disagree with.

Its not a crime to wear the wrong t-shirt...crimes of fashion are not the govt's business. All the times I've seen folk arrested or escorted by the govt. out for wearing the wrong clothes its been because of their disruption...not their political statement. I myself protested a speech by the President of NOW in college by sitting in the front dressed all manly. Didn't get escorted out...did get asked out by a hot NOW chick (who was not even a lesbian). Likewise I was asked to leave a speech by a Clinton Health official for asking what was considered an inappropriate question (all I asked was why his solution to medical problems involved political solutions...he's a doctor, he should be doctor'ing...I was a radical I was, a conservative who spoke up...and on campus which is the last place you want free speech).

I note for the record that schools will remove people who are wearing the wrong t-shirt. That is a discipline issue and I likewise note that schools tend to overreach in my opinion.

As for right versus wrong signs. I watch the WWE and they regularly exclude signs that are deemed unsuitable for TV. They also provide signs to people. Campaigns act likewise. Its their event...not your forum. They are under no obligation to accomodate you. You are free to speak, free to have any message you want, but so are they and there is nothing in the Constitution that says you have to listen to them or they have to listen to you.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:06 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


'Hero'

Right signs - wrong signs. Not talking about campaigns, talking about motorcades. The people with the 'right signs' are allowed at the side of the road, the people with the 'wrong signs' are fenced in a quarter of a mile away. So, in your 'expert' (and try to not be so confused this time) opinion, is that acceptable ?

"All the times I've seen folk arrested or escorted by the govt. out for wearing the wrong clothes its been because of their disruption...not their political statement." I'm talking about non-disruptive people who were removed from a hall where a speech was to be given, arrested and jailed simply for having the wrong t-shirts.

I'll give you news-links later. At this point I'm looking for your opinion untainted by 20/20 hindsight as to how these were decided.


***************************************************************
And PLEASE try not to be so confused. You don't look smart. You just look silly.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:19 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I've never heard of folk just standing on the side of the road being removed
Then you've had your head buried, and didn't bother to unbury it by following the links. Please unburden yourself of your ignorance, then, and read that exact scenario

Quote:

When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, 'The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.' The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a 'designated free-speech zone' on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct. Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine 'people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone


If you read the details of the arrest, you'll find that he did not "resist" arrest, he just refused to go when they told him to and was peaceably taken to jail. For carrying a sign. So now you've heard of ONE case.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:43 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

If you read the details of the arrest, you'll find that he did not "resist" arrest, he just refused to go when they told him to and was peaceably taken to jail. For carrying a sign. So now you've heard of ONE case.


It sounds like a staged political event, in which case the President had a right to control the venue. He did not take away the person's right to speak, he merely moved it for a limited time AWAY from the President's right to speak.

The man was free to express any message he wanted, in any form he wanted, to anyone he wanted, any time he wanted, any place he wanted (all within normal reason, can't mow the lawn at midnight and such)...but he had no right to take advantage of the President's venue because the President has the same rights and the same reasonable protections.

Setting up the "free speech zone" protects him and the President both by giving them both a place to express themselves without undue interferance from the other. God Bless America

H


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:02 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So the 'right' messages get allowed and the 'wrong' ones get contained.

Sieg Heil !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:36 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I figured Hero would come up with some pathetic rationalization why people with disagreeable signs "should" be moved off public streets, away from the eyes and ears of the President and the press. Not that they were "interrupting" anything, or got in the way of the President getting his point across, or posed a security threat... but simply because the Presdient didn't want to see them and - poof!- They were gone!

Hero, you're not even a "closeted" fascist anymore. You have openly come out in favor of the President controlling all public political expression... just because that's what he wants. Your ability to bend deeply and lick mightily has not been surpassed.

I bow to the master of doublethink.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 1:39 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Verizon reveals extent of records released
Quote:

Verizon Communications says it has provided federal, state and local law enforcement agencies tens of thousands of communication and business records relating to customers based on emergency requests without a court order or administrative subpoena
I'm sure Zero will come up with a rationalization for this too.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 16, 2007 4:15 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:

If you read the details of the arrest, you'll find that he did not "resist" arrest, he just refused to go when they told him to and was peaceably taken to jail. For carrying a sign. So now you've heard of ONE case.


It sounds like a staged political event, in which case the President had a right to control the venue. He did not take away the person's right to speak, he merely moved it for a limited time AWAY from the President's right to speak.

The man was free to express any message he wanted, in any form he wanted, to anyone he wanted, any time he wanted, any place he wanted (all within normal reason, can't mow the lawn at midnight and such)...but he had no right to take advantage of the President's venue because the President has the same rights and the same reasonable protections.

Setting up the "free speech zone" protects him and the President both by giving them both a place to express themselves without undue interferance from the other. God Bless America

H


Gee Hero, a pity the courts didn't agree with you, if you had gone to the article you could have read this... 'District justice Shirley Trkula threw out the charges, stating that "I believe this is America. Whatever happened to 'I don't agree with you, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it'?"[3]

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:52 AM

MAL4PREZ


Wow Hero. So not only do you want your government to lie to you whenever and however they see fit, you want them to muzzle everyone else too.

Lovely America you would build for us. You truly frighten me.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:21 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Wow, I cannot believe you are all going after Hero for ONE isolated incident that happened over 5 YEARS ago.
Perspective people.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


We're not going after Hero because of "one" isolated five year-old incident. And if that's how you truly think of it, then you haven't been paying much attention.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:10 AM

MAL4PREZ


BDN - it's the imperfection of posting - is there snark or are you saying that seriously? Really, I'm not sure.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:35 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
BDN - it's the imperfection of posting - is there snark or are you saying that seriously? Really, I'm not sure.


I'm being serious. Hero is defending the legality of free speech zones that have been in place since the Vietnam war. I thought this thread was about the 'Police State' that has supposedly arisen during Bush's tenure. If all Signy can come up with is one incident 5 years ago than I think some perspective is needed.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BDN- I can come up with lots of instances, not just one. What do you take me for?

I don't like the idea of "Free Speech Zones" in general whether they're set up the the Dems or Repugs. But when that idea is extended to excluded specific non-disruptive opinions from a public event on a public thoroughfare... when all others are allowed... is such an egregious curtailment of freedom of speech, it just leaves me breathless. I'm surprised you don't feel the same.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 6:00 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I'm being serious. Hero is defending the legality of free speech zones that have been in place since the Vietnam war. I thought this thread was about the 'Police State' that has supposedly arisen during Bush's tenure. If all Signy can come up with is one incident 5 years ago than I think some perspective is needed.

Huh. Now see, what I'm responding to is the extreme one-sidedness of Hero's posts, and his continued assertions that the party in power has every right to do whatever it damned well pleases to further its own political purposes. (Would Hero speak up if the love Hillary crowd corralled all the Repubs into a corner far from the cameras?)

I'm no lawyer, so I don't know what statutes got started when, but I do know that it has been a practice of this administration to keep critical messages out of Bush's view, as if to preserve his delusional belief that he is right. Arresting a peaceful person for not agreeing to be silenced (moving him to a place where he can't be seen, while leaving those who lick Bush's feet, is indeed silencing him) is the behavior of a fascist totalitarian regime. This is not American.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:29 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
We're not going after Hero because of "one" isolated five year-old incident. And if that's how you truly think of it, then you haven't been paying much attention.


No. They are going after me because, like most liberal Bush-haters, they don't believe in free speech. They believe in the right to their dissent, to their protest, and to state their opinions without interferance.

They do not believe anyone, much less or especially President Bush, has the same right.

If you don't believe me...ask Imus (or Rush, Bill O'Reilly, Hillary Clinton when she's pro war, or anyone hanging a ghost on a noose this Halloween or planning to celebrate Christmas at school or work).

They somehow think Bush was trying to control their speech even though the content was unchanged. They simply had no right to the President's venue.

Suppose they had a big anti-war rally with speakers and music and lesbians. Then the President, or maybe a pro-war veterans group, shows up and demands to give a speech and requires they all listen. That would be wrong. So is interrupting his political event.

A free speech zone would allow both sides a venue to express to their heart's content without interfering with the other. That's the essence of free speech.

If you don't like it tell me all about it...from over there...in the far corner. I'm listening (puts on his new IPod)...ok, dissent!

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 8:37 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
(Would Hero speak up if the love Hillary crowd corralled all the Repubs into a corner far from the cameras?)


I note for the record that you've just described the evening news, CNN, MSNBC, and 95% of the Newpapers in this country.
Quote:


I do know that it has been a practice of this administration to keep critical messages out of Bush's view, as if to preserve his delusional belief that he is right. Arresting a peaceful person for not agreeing to be silenced (moving him to a place where he can't be seen


The govt. is under no obligation to provide a forum for dissent...that's pretty much what the media does.

You said it yourself: "not agreeing to be silenced".

A person, the President or otherwise, can't freely speak if someone else refuses to be silenced. Since the govt can't legally silence them, the only remedy is to provide them an alternate forum where they can shout to their heart's content without stopping someone they disagree, or the President, from speaking their piece.

I seem to recall that guy from the Minutemen being denied free speech at Columbia by kind of folk your defending. Perhaps a reasonable 'Free Speech Zone' would have been more appropriate then storming the stage, shouting him down, and threatening his person. Unless he has no rights...being conservative and all.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 9:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

A person, the President or otherwise, can't freely speak if someone else refuses to be silenced. Since the govt can't legally silence them, the only remedy is to provide them an alternate forum where they can shout to their heart's content without stopping someone they disagree, or the President, from speaking their piece.
The specific incident I referred to in no way interfered with GWB's "getting the message out". While I agree with you that everyone should have an open forum, it should be an open forum of equal value as well as equal time. Being allowed to shout yourself hoarse in a basement bathroom is not "free speech".
Quote:

I seem to recall that guy from the Minutemen being denied free speech at Columbia by kind of folk your defending.
The "kind of folk" I'm defending deplore that incident more than you do. I agree that there should be an orderly process. One person's right to "free speech" should not trump another's. But it is not the act of speaking freely that we're debating, it's the availablity of a FORUM from which to speak.
Quote:

They simply had no right to the President's venue.
Hero, you must be confused. The "event" was a motorcade, open to the public. How did he not have a right to the "venue"?



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:54 AM

JARHEAD


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Personally, I'm going to give as much as I can to the FSF and ACLU. If there's a demonstration - I'm going to join it. And I'm going to write, write, write to members Congress. And think of anything else I can do.

Or maybe I'll just sit on my duff and complain ...

***************************************************************
... polish my gun, and feel all heroic.



REALLY hate to break it you, but those two organizations are FUELING the flames of violent revolution, no not fanning, but instead dumping barrels of gasoline outright. Perhaps their entire agenda is secretly to anger the political right in America(the ones likely to be armed) until they start shooting. I doubt it, but stranger things, etc.

And Rue, you also expose your exceptionally low opinion of America's military when you blindly assume that those of us that have and are wearing a uniform are dimwits that would simply follow the order to massacre American civilians. I don't blame you, you're a liberal, and you all tend to forget that this country of ideas and ideals was started when a bunch of amateur soldiers fired on some British troops that were hell-bent on disarming colonials. I don't blame you because apparently whoever raised you forgot to mention that to have anything of value in this craphill verse, you're going to have to bleed some, and perhaps a lot. You will have to stand up, and you may even have to die - comes with the territory.

I swore an oath to defend THE CONSTITUTION Rue, against all enemies foreign and domestic, and THEN to follow the orders of the President of the United States. It's not just a catchy sentence, it's a gorram priority listing. So when POTUS becomes an enemy of the constitution, his orders are invalid, and believe me he's getting pretty darn close. But he's also only ONE man of very many in government at all levels that are approaching the same line that he is.

Don't think for a second that the Federal police agencies in America are in the dark about the political views of America's vets and even current active duty members - they know that the most common sentiment among vets is that "I didn't go and almost die for my country so that {something unconstitutional} would happen." They trained us to kill, and we're very good at it, much better than the Federals. And now a man with dictatorial powers named George has gotten us into a pointless war and a crony named Clinton is set to push the American populace to it's breaking point at a time when we have a fresh crop of young disenfranchised vets. You do the math.

Across the fruited plain Americans are finding out that they don't really own the land that they purchased thanks to environmentalism gone mad(like my own grandparents), they are scratching their heads as to why they can't make their own alcohol to power their cars now that gasoline seems destined for $10 a gallon, they don't understand why the IRS can completely ruin their lives on a whim and spend more collecting a tax debt than what the debt was, they don't understand why they are being harassed for disciplining their children and on, and on, and on. They don't understand why people that are in the country illegally are not being rounded up and sent home, especially now that corporate America seems damned determined to send every job it can over-seas.

Groups like the ALCU lit the fuse a long time ago, and they aren't gonna be ready for the resulting explosion.

Vet pulls down Flag
http://www.infowars.net/articles/october2007/031007Flag.htm

The view of the landscape from the POV of an Iraq Vet:
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2901040?cmpnid=776&pt=lk&refsite=10471


I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 1:56 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

REALLY hate to break it you, but those two organizations are FUELING the flames of violent revolution, no not fanning, but instead dumping barrels of gasoline outright.
I have no idea what you just said. What do you mean?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 3:14 PM

JARHEAD


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:

I've been reading the 'bury guns' thread.

I wonder how packing a pistol, or even a rifle, is going to do any good when the SWAT team outguns you and you get 'disappeared'.

All you supposed libertarians out there - you going to get up on your hind legs about this ??
-----


"It's scary how many neo-Nazis line up to shit on the Constitution."And how few freedom-lovers rise to defend it.

Hey - you libertarians out there - Do you think your guns are going to help you as your neighbors stand behind their curtains to spy on what's going on ? And later they'll say - gee I never would have guessed ... and much later they'll say ... hey whatever happened to ...

There are some things that need a mass response. Buying guns isn't going to help you one bit.
-----

Personally, I'm going to give as much as I can to the FSF and ACLU. If there's a demonstration - I'm going to join it. And I'm going to write, write, write to members Congress. And think of anything else I can do.

Or maybe I'll just sit on my duff and complain ...





What do I mean? The ACLU started out suing for civil rights. Applause all around, segregation was and is abhorrent. Now they do things like this http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029
. From little things like their attacks on the Boy Scouts to bigger like attacking religious symbols, etc. Everything they do lately almost seems calculated to piss off the true right wing in America, which is only adding to the existing anger over abuse of government power. That's what I meant SIG.

Oddly enough, I think that if armed revolt breaks out in America, it won't be over illegal wire-tapping, or CIA torturing non-Americans or even Americans. The right wing has become increasingly frustrated the last few decades as they continued to get a government that ignored them and their wishes, which I know must blow your minds liberals, but conservatives are quite a bit less happy with this situation than you are. All of this anger over the Bush administration and all we have to say is boy are they late to the party.

It's not like we've overnight become a pseudo-police state - it took the better part of a century for the Federal government to acquire the power it has now, the Bush administration is just pushing a little farther.




I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 17, 2007 4:31 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Wow, I cannot believe you are all going after Hero for ONE isolated incident that happened over 5 YEARS ago.
Perspective people.

One isolated incident? maybe. Personally, I'm having a devil of time finding out how some of the suits, for instance, for the Miami's handling of the protests at FTAA turned out. The only positive thing from that is at least the city's report admitted problems and indicated the police needed better training in handling peaceful protests. If someone can find out how the court ruled on those four or five cases, we can have another nice little batch of 'isolated incidents' for you and Hero to ignore.
In any case, if you watch carefully, you will see Hero deftly avoids even commenting on the item. You can look above, and even when he addresses questions, he likes to jump to the topic of free speech zones. We say, the zones are nice, but legal freespeech -outside- the areas of the presentation are being suppressed, and Hero says 'Look at the pretty free speech zones.'

In any case, I've lost interest. There's no point in trying to point out any single incident of problem because even if a point is made, it will simply be ignored.

FWIW, I think having the free speech zones available at/near conventions is fine... up to the point where, in incidents like the 'isolated incident', you start telling folks on the street who have all right to be there they must go... how many other simply do the 'sheeple' and go where the police have ordered them. Most folk don't have the gumption to tell the cops they have no right to so order them.

Edit: And if you follow Hero's posts, he never once even suggests it 'might' be ok to defy a cop's order.

Much later Edit: 5 years is recent. Sadly, in this country, such issues take 2-3 years to make it through the courts. If we don't have a court decision in hand, Hero will 'sit on high' and proclaim that the poor fool had it coming for standing up to the officer and telling the officer he had no right to tell him where to go. If appeals aren't complete, Hero will explain to us how when it gets to the supreme court, it will get shot down because, after all, he's the constitutional expert.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:52 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero, you must be confused. The "event" was a motorcade, open to the public. How did he not have a right to the "venue"?


A motorcade is not open to the public. It merely makes use of public streets...like a parade. And like a parade they are entitled to protection and crowd control. If they want everybody out there doing whatever, thats fine and its generally how it is. But if they want a more controlled event...they have that right too.

The protestor can stand on the street all they want. The venue is provided by the arrival and participation of the President and he is under no obligation to be forced to share his venue with a dissenter and under no obligation to listen to their message.

Its fine to want everyone to have equal time for their say. But there are 300 million folks in this country...we can't let them all have the podium at the same time. If they want to have a speech or make a statement, thats fine. But there's no law says they get a microphone or captive audience. They want a microphone (either an actual one or a metaphorical one in the form of press coverage) they can earn one, they got no right to take the President's.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:15 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
We say, the zones are nice, but legal freespeech -outside- the areas of the presentation are being suppressed, and Hero says 'Look at the pretty free speech zones.'


There's no law what says you can't protest outside your designated zone.

There are actually two protected areas in question. One for the President and one for the Protester. The President has exclusive right to his area for a limited period, the protester likwise, thus allowing them both to enjoy their free speech without interferrance. Outside of those two areas the usual rules apply allowing you to say what you want, to who you want, when you want, and with absolutely no obligation on anyone's part to pay the slightest attention unless you block traffic.
Quote:


In any case, I've lost interest. There's no point in trying to point out any single incident of problem because even if a point is made, it will simply be ignored.


Wow, and the same thing happens when you blow a single incident or a series of isolated unrelated incidents out of proportion, package them up with generalization and rumor and slap 'Evil Govt. Conspiracy' on them.
Quote:


Edit: And if you follow Hero's posts, he never once even suggests it 'might' be ok to defy a cop's order.


If you think the order's unlawful, challenge it in court. Its never a good idea to challenge the guy pointing the taser at you. The very act of defying a lawful order is a crime, which means arrest, taser, strip search, perhaps resisting, lost teeth, and Bubba your cell mate.

Or you could simply disagree with the officer, then file a complaint, have a hearing, win a judgement, and get some money and the satisfaction of knowing you resolved your conflict in a civilized manner.

Unless your wrong in which case you still avoided Bubba.

Quote:


Much later Edit: 5 years is recent. Sadly, in this country, such issues take 2-3 years to make it through the courts.


It depends on the case. If its a Federal Civil Rights action heading to the Supreme Court...3 years minumum.

Most of these cases can be handled quickly in District Courts. By quickly it can be as little as a day or as long as a year.
Quote:


If we don't have a court decision in hand, Hero will 'sit on high' and proclaim that the poor fool had it coming for standing up to the officer and telling the officer he had no right to tell him where to go.


It depends on the circumstances. If your trespassing, being disorderly, interferring with the other party, or acting in a beligerant manner...then they have a duty to tell you where to go and a duty to shock the hell out of you if you refuse and resist.
Quote:


If appeals aren't complete, Hero will explain to us how when it gets to the supreme court, it will get shot down because, after all, he's the constitutional expert.


Can't argue with you there. I am this board's foremost expert, which does not mean a heck of a lot since most of you are pretty Constitutionally challenged...although I consider myself number 2 here at the office.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:36 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

A motorcade is not open to the public.
Huh? General transportation of the President from point A to Point B is not open to the public. But we're not talking about transporation. We're talking about seeing and being seen by ... the public. And if you can find any laws regarding Presidential motorcades and their status as a "private event" I'd like to see you post it here.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


OOooohh. I'm going to keep up on this.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:11 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

A motorcade is not open to the public.
Huh? General transportation of the President from point A to Point B is not open to the public. But we're not talking about transporation. We're talking about seeing and being seen by ... the public. And if you can find any laws regarding Presidential motorcades and their status as a "private event" I'd like to see you post it here.


If you got cleared for a Presidential 'ride along' let me know. Every time I've been around the President's motorcade...which is about three times in my life...they've kept people away and closed the streets to other traffic (for a few minutes anyway).

I would suggest that the President has certain political events (although not so much these days as he's not running for anything). Having attended one such event in 2004 when he came to a local city, I noted that the entire thing was staged from the music, crowd warm-up by the Mayor and some others, security, hand-out flags and signs, and the arrival of the President including his trip through the town to the event. It was a first for a sitting President to come to the city and thus the entire event was...an event, including the protestors a couple blocks away who had their own stage, mikes, music, and comedy...er...speakers.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:30 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BFD. (That's NOT Buffalo Fire Department) So the President has an event and some folks make an attempt to plan nice things. So what? That doesn't mean the president has any particular "right" to keep dissenters away.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:13 PM

FLETCH2


What's the historical context of this? My understanding is that the current administration has acted to expand the concept of executive authority in recent years. Did other administrations control the public space to this degree?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:13 PM

LEADB


Hero,
Thanks for the reply; you fairly hit on the points I raised, and for the most part agree. Trimming down to a few items for brevity's sake...

Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by LeadB:
In any case, I've lost interest. There's no point in trying to point out any single incident of problem because even if a point is made, it will simply be ignored.


Wow, and the same thing happens when you blow a single incident or a series of isolated unrelated incidents out of proportion, package them up with generalization and rumor and slap 'Evil Govt. Conspiracy' on them.


Well, I guess neither of actually lost interest; since here we are;-) I don't recall -personally- having slapped 'Evil Govt Conspiracy' on them; I do tend to call out Bush since it is my belief he is pushing the edge on trying to keep any dissenting voice as far away from him as possible.
Quote:


Quote:


Edit: And if you follow Hero's posts, he never once even suggests it 'might' be ok to defy a cop's order.


If you think the order's unlawful, challenge it in court. Its never a good idea to challenge the guy pointing the taser at you. The very act of defying a lawful order is a crime, which means arrest, taser, strip search, perhaps resisting, lost teeth, and Bubba your cell mate.

Or you could simply disagree with the officer, then file a complaint, have a hearing, win a judgement, and get some money and the satisfaction of knowing you resolved your conflict in a civilized manner.

Unless your wrong in which case you still avoided Bubba.

That is good lawyerly advice. It rankles a bit, but it does have pragmatic value. Thanks for the tip; no guarantees that in the heat of the moment it will be followed. But I do appreciate having another tool in the belt of peaceful 'resistance'.
Quote:

Quote:


Much later Edit: 5 years is recent. Sadly, in this country, such issues take 2-3 years to make it through the courts.


It depends on the case. If its a Federal Civil Rights action heading to the Supreme Court...3 years minumum.

Most of these cases can be handled quickly in District Courts. By quickly it can be as little as a day or as long as a year.

Fair enough, I didn't mean to imply there wasn't significant variability.
Quote:

Quote:


If we don't have a court decision in hand, Hero will 'sit on high' and proclaim that the poor fool had it coming for standing up to the officer and telling the officer he had no right to tell him where to go.


It depends on the circumstances. If your trespassing, being disorderly, interferring with the other party, or acting in a beligerant manner...then they have a duty to tell you where to go and a duty to shock the hell out of you if you refuse and resist.

Yeh, but you will notice that the items -I- have been trying to get a 'read' on the person hasn't acted in the ways you have described or that I'm trying to figure out if the person has crossed lines for which they can be arrested; I do realize there are bounds. If you think I've raised those sorts of issues and can find a reference, I'd be happy to discuss the particular item.
Quote:

Quote:


If appeals aren't complete, Hero will explain to us how when it gets to the supreme court, it will get shot down because, after all, he's the constitutional expert.


Can't argue with you there. I am this board's foremost expert, which does not mean a heck of a lot since most of you are pretty Constitutionally challenged...although I consider myself number 2 here at the office.

H

Ah look, another point of agreement! ;-) Seriously, I did appreciate your taking the time to respond.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:32 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
BFD. (That's NOT Buffalo Fire Department) So the President has an event and some folks make an attempt to plan nice things. So what? That doesn't mean the president has any particular "right" to keep dissenters away.

Sig, all you have to say is that the courts have clearly upheld the rights of folks like Bill Neel to have dissenting signs along the causeway of a presidential motorcade. We have found 'case law'. I just wish it weren't so hard to find. 'Course, it being hard to find is why lawyers get the big bucks. And knowing when it applies and doesn't. And details like that.

Besides... everyone knows BFD stands for Binghamton Fire Department. Says so, right on the buildings.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:46 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hero, you must be confused. The "event" was a motorcade, open to the public. How did he not have a right to the "venue"?


A motorcade is not open to the public. It merely makes use of public streets...like a parade. And like a parade they are entitled to protection and crowd control. If they want everybody out there doing whatever, thats fine and its generally how it is. But if they want a more controlled event...they have that right too.

The protestor can stand on the street all they want. The venue is provided by the arrival and participation of the President and he is under no obligation to be forced to share his venue with a dissenter and under no obligation to listen to their message.

Its fine to want everyone to have equal time for their say. But there are 300 million folks in this country...we can't let them all have the podium at the same time. If they want to have a speech or make a statement, thats fine. But there's no law says they get a microphone or captive audience. They want a microphone (either an actual one or a metaphorical one in the form of press coverage) they can earn one, they got no right to take the President's.

H

I agree 100% with the above: key-'The protester can stand on the street all they want. ' My objection is the cases where this is proscribed inappropriately. I will even make allowances the protesters must make some reasonable effort to not block ingress or egress and all sorts of lawyerly details.

The FTAA debacle... http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Nov2006/mychalejko1106.html ' There were about 220 arrests during the protests with only 4 convictions. ' That seems like a pretty poor ratio. On the flip side, to be fair, Miami did do a review, and cited need for better police training and other reforms. Now will they implement and follow through? One can hope. And Hero would be fair in saying, in both the Miami case and the Bill Heel case that ultimately the system worked (though some of the folks in Miami did take a beating; not sure how those suits settled out).

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 19, 2007 3:44 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
There were about 220 arrests during the protests with only 4 convictions. ' That seems like a pretty poor ratio.


Actually its right on the money. The reason is that, as a Prosecutor, I'm more concerned with real criminals then liberal sign wavers. Sure, if they cause a real problem or resist the officers, or somebody gets out of hand...then its game on and I'm sending them to jail.

But if its just a silly little protest thing without the aggrevating factors then what's the harm? The person was arrested, the event is over, and unless the President is coming back again, which is unlikely since he averages a trip to this area once every couple hundred years...then we call it even (usually the Defendant pays court costs).

Its not so much that we're being nice. We just don't want the paperwork.

I note for the record that its not just liberals and not always political.

I prosecuted some sign waver types protesting abortion at one of the City's fairs back in June. Which is odd...because the Abortion Festival is in August...come on down next year...good food, good music...

I also prosecuted a father who was demonstrating against his child support payments by marching with a sign outside his ex's house (its actually my all time favorite case). He was on the sidewalk, had a nice sign too, but still it violated the Protection Order she had, so I sent him to jail for 10 days. He argued free speech too. Turns out free speech does not include the right to violate a protection order. Had a similar case of a guy who gave his wife the finger and then argued free speech. Same result.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, March 27, 2024 07:58 - 6153 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts
Tucker Carlson
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:24 - 132 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL