"If they want to protest, fine. But a Bush campaign stop isn't the place for it."

And where, exactly, are protestors supposed to do their thing and hope to get heard by the Prez? And this wasn't a campaign stop. If it was, there would be some appeal to undecided or even Dem voters. Has there even been a rally for Bush that was attended by anyone not a staunch Bush apologist? What does this say for our President? To me, it says, i want to talk to only a certain group of people, and everyone who disagrees with me has no right to be here. Which in turn, suggests he (Bush) isn't interested in my opinions. I invite a conservative member of our nation to show me I am wrong in this conclusion.
Why would any candidate, no matter what party affiliation, purposely no allow differing opinions? Correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought one of the things that made America great was the diversity.

This will probably get lost here, but I think it's pretty relevant, and the verse about Jesus being a terrorist as far as the Roman Empire was concerned seems illuminating... if the son of god walked the earth these days, we'd have him jailed.


(MC Frontalot) www.frontalot.com

SPECIAL DELIVERY (2003) [download from the music page]

I tried to go clean from protesting but I'm a recidivist
my government behaving with unlimited wickedness
in the interest of peace is how a liar wages war
then clamors for more.
I wish we had elections every day
wave the ballot in the air like a sign when I say
that democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun
is terror elsewhere on the world I'm from

do you cheer for the once-and-for-all of an enemy
whose hand our man don was on in '83
but who now exemplifies all evil
that's what you get for shaking hands with people
who represent the vast and sinister interests of industry
we protect the free trade world, so don't dare try to stop us
we deliver them bullets and sell them their coffins

and I wish that I could afford the ear of Bush the second
I'd ask is it your favorite philosopher who recommended
invading and exterminating all who defy us,
crying out justice but seeking out triumphs?
wasn't your christ unbeloved of empires?
one nailed his ass to a post; he expired!
a terrorist, as roman evidence showed
put down like a retard on the death row
in texas, I guess "tough luck," right George?
ain't that how every war gets scored?
big gun wins, winner gets a free turn
enemy after enemy burns
are you listening sir? or did your mind drift
to the next country in your axis
to all the cool bombs drops you get to call
delivery fresh from the 4th reich to y'all

beat by DJ Earflaps and Baddd Spellah

Omega Ohm
We do produce a variety and quantity of goods, but most of these raw materials are extracted from outside the US. Production occurs outside the US, we simply manage the distribution and marketing of most goods termed "American" these days. It has been argued that the current status of First world counties are not countries invested in manufacturing goods (as it used to be), but providing services. As countries like Brazil, Mexico, even China enter the manufactruing practice, new standards for evaluating a countries world-wide position are shifting away from the material (production) towards the intellectual (services). This is not to say that we are smarter, but that we have consolodated control on intectual capital, and the institutions by which this is reproduced throughout the world.

hapless

I knew someone was going to call me on "utterly unsustainable."

Look, it's true that genes are spread throughout groups. However, this idea that the genes will cause radical shifts in behaviour, late in life, "for the good of the group" are absurd.

When a female Crenicara punctulata turns into a male, it's not "for the good of the group" but for the good of the individual. It's great for the individual because s/he suddenly gets to spread his/her genetic code among a great percentage of the population.

This incidentally helps the group, but only incidentally.

In the mice example, there is /no/ direct individual advantage (other than, perhaps, the reduction of immediate stress) to mating with males when it comes to passing on genes.

While individuals do live in groups, selection just does not work this way.

[quote]Who exterminated the greater number of people during their first four years as national leader- George W. Bush, or Adolf Hitler? Anyone?[/quote]

Well there are some high expectations for a leader. I *suppose* we can concede that Bush is better than Hitler. But not by much, at least Hitler made that cute Volkswagen bug.

Although hapless is wrong about the U.S. producing more services than goods (Sorry bud), I don't think that can be used to argue the Bourgeoisies of the U.S. We use inefficient forms of energy and consumer massive amounts of leisure products. Unfortunately for us globalization is starting to normalize all of that. Because of all of this we cannot afford to have countries loose faith in us by the current administrations outrageous and frankly ignorant foreign policy. More countries issue their bonds in dollars than almost any other currency and commodities such as oil are also dealt in dollars. This is most of what gives the dollar its value (people demand dollars instead of pounds in order to buy oil or Mexican debt). If the dollar starts to waiver in strength (Because the farking president won't admit tax cuts are a bad idea and interest rates need to be raised to increase capital flow from MNCs) then you will start to see new bonds being issued in more stable currencies (like the Pound or even Gold). This will lower the demand for U.S. bills and treasuries and without interest rates to lower could even trigger hyper-inflation (although that is unlikely). We need to increase taxes, increase interest rates, and lower the debt NOW!!! What good is a $50 tax credit if you are paying $75 a month more for necessities?

Private event people. Private property most likely. You get tickets to something, its private. You can be kicked out whenever the people running it deem it is necessary. (read: On ANY Private property, the owner can kick you out when they see it as necessary, for whatever reason)

/ignoring the political personal freedom bit, not going there

I just have to post this gem:

"I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law." --John Kerry

There's your precious defender of the Constitution folks. Interpret the Constitution according to law indeed.

stop threadjacking everybody.

let's get back to the issues. As a world citizen, American's are now banned from using the constitution and calling it their own. You've shown yourselves incapable of managing it correctly and it is now going to be given to someone else to take care of.

no go sit in the corner and think about what you have done and how you can make it right again.

Would the real Republicans -- those who believe in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and personal liberties -- please retake your party from the bunch of flag-wrapping, liberty-hating, wealth-pandering, cut-tax-&-still-spend bunch of religio-fascists that are running this country?!?

At least, those Republicans realized that governing was not a case of good v. evil on every subject. They could compromise; they could understand what was best was whatever was for the greater good; they knew that if you disagreed with them, it wasn't because you were a murdering terrorist bent on destroying America, it was just because you had a different point of view. They knew that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were not to be trifled with -- not to be torn and trashed whenever an opportunity arose... God, I miss those Republicans.

/Waiting...

For all you slow thinkers, the law is supposed to be interpreted based on the Constitution - not the other way around.

"ah...ma'am could I please see your ticket?"



"ya see...quantities of freedom are limited. If you want to bring freedom to the middle east you're gonna have to stop being so selfish and give a little."

Yellowbeard,
"Look, it's true that genes are spread throughout groups. However, this idea that the genes will cause radical shifts in behaviour, late in life, "for the good of the group" are absurd."

I agree completely. I just diagree with you position about that locus of selective forces as being a phenomena that only implicates individual members of a species. Perhaps I am an evolutionary purist and place great weight on the species as Darwin did with "Origin of Species". I think that Euroamerican scientific tendency to priviledge the individual as the agent of change and desecnt reflects more our values than actual scientific analyses about nature and species.
Coming at it from 2 differnt ends, but at least we both dissagree with the absurdity presented above. Besides, remember that is scientific calumny to compare humans with species soo distant from homo sapiens.

unexplained bacon writes:

what the hell has happened to my country?

Some Republican figured out that if they wrapped themself in the American flag, people bought it. Also, by default, if you didn't, you must be a Communist.

Later, some Democrat figured that if they wrapped themself in the 1st Amendment, people bought it. Also, by default, if you didn't, you must be a Fascist.

these were citizens at a political rally wearing t-shirts that were in favor of civil liberties...that is all.

LMAO!!!! Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...on my planet, called Earth, our sky is blue. What is it on your planet?

it really worries me that they were asked to leave.

It worries me that people still fall for the "we are only expressing our right to free speech" mantra. As I said, just getting the tickets it was win-win from there for them. I also gave them a golf clap. Well played.

It's similar really to the stunts being pulled by Republican operatives at Kerry rallies. People get thrown out, beaten up, etc. They make their statement. They don't get thrown out, etc. they get to heckle the candidate/ask embarassing questions, etc., and once again they get to make their statement.

hdhale's comment gives me an idea of what the asshats who kicked them out were thinking...that kind of presumptive preemptive B.S. thought process is going to run this country into the ground if we let it.

Oh, it's pretty much already there. If 10 years ago you would have told me John Kerry had a prayer in Hell of getting even 40% of the vote and winning more than a dozen electoral votes, I would have told you to put down the Crack pipe. Now, though it's likely he'll lose, it won't be by much. We've reached a stage now where the fringes of the country on the left and right geographically speaking are increasingly politically estranged from the rest, and I think it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that barring some sort of major political revolution that at some point, we'll be right back where we were in 1860--only this time there will be no slavery card to play to keep the Union together.

--h

though i agree with you on your other points, workparty, it is true the US has become service oriented rather than producing goods. Why do you think so many of those jobs Bush is touting as having been created are minimum wage jobs?

PTK

You make valid points about private property... to counter that, I believe it was mentioned to be a county or state fairgrounds, state police were there, the president of the united states was speaking...

1. County/State Fairgrounds - Weakest argument, not sure if this is privately owned or not, regardless of it's uses. Still, it's worth consideration.

2. State Police - Sorry, these guys aren't used in any private capacity when on duty. The taxpayers of Oregon are employing them. If they are being used as security, it's no longer a private event.

3. The U.S. President - He's our employee. That may not be the reality of the situation anymore, but it is the truth of it. He does not make policy for us, we make policy through him. He is elected (and salaried) to make decisions that forward the cause of *every single citizen of this country*. Him being there, in official capactiy, makes it a public event.

Thanks WorkPartyd1

Some subjects are beyond me. Modern world economy is one... (but i will always try)

Bush is a damn freak who stole his presidency from Gore and this country deserved what it gets if they reelect him for another term.

rally: A gathering intended to inspire enthusiasm for a cause.

I went to a political rally earlier this year. There was a lady there who had some shirt that said something like the three ladies in the article. Sure enough, half way through the speech, she was biatchin and moaning causing a big scene . . . and security had to carry her fat arse out of the arena.

People, rallies are to show support, by definition. If you want to go someplace and scream about politics, go to the rally of the candidate you support . . .

Okay, so I guess we're in agreement that in their first four years as national leader, Bush has already outscored Hitler in terms of total number of people killed, countries invaded, and wars started. I can see why Republiklan activists have become silent- I guess they consider that a good thing? Anyways, let's try another measure...

Which nation put the greater number of people in jail- America under Bush in his first four years, or Germany under Hitler in his first four years? Also, are America's jails more black four years into Bush's term as Germany's jails were Jewish four years into Hitler's rule?

barjockey

many of us realize Kerry is not the best answer to our problems, hell I don't generally care for democrats. However, its my opinion that Bush has done so poorly as a leader that voting him back in is the worst answer.

Bush is a failure, I was with him (on foreign policy anyway) right through afghanistan, but iraq was stupid, I've always said so...I'm still right. I hate being right when my country suffers for it, i wish i were wrong, but i don't think I am. Kerry will be the first democrat for president i've ever voted for. hopefully the last.
Bush has done soooooo poorly I almost wish Gore would have gotten in, and I hate that guy.

God damn the president.

More than a little late, but not too late to have a say.

In reference to the article:

Unless the T-shirts were the only thing the teachers were wearing, it sounds like a theme Dubya has had running through his entire campaign. He is the king, and unless you are willing to sign a double loyalty oath, he doesn't want to see or hear you.

He seems to be surrounded by a group of thugs, willing to enforce whatever weirdness the neocons deem efficient in seeking reelection. Note, I said efficient, I didn't say appropriate.

/And the beat down goes on. Uniform of the day, will include rubber truncheons, protective masks and ponchos.

maffick writes:

Translation: "Hdhale is a complete traitor to the US constitution, and should be tried for treason"....

If being a cynic means I'm a traitor, then the US Constitution is pretty much not worth the paper it's written on now and matters a treason are irrelevant.

Apparently as far you are concerned, protected speech is "correct" speech. That was never how it was suppose to be.

--h

barjockey

There is not enough room in these forums to post of of George W. Bush's mis-statements.

So I will post a few from this month only.

"After standing on the stage, after the debates, I made it very plain we will not have an all-volunteer army." George W. Bush, Daytona Beach, Fla., Oct. 16, 2004

"I heard there's rumors on the Internets that we're going to have a draft." George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"When a drug comes in from Canada, I wanna make sure it cures ya, not kill ya... I've got an obligation to make sure our government does everything we can to protect you. And one my worry is that it looks like it's from Canada, and it might be from a third world." George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there." George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"Let me see where to start here. First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy the most liberal senator of all." George W. Bush, referring to Sen. Kerry, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal opinion. That's not what the constitution says. The constitution of the United States says we're all you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America." George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

/SNAP

Fumbling, bumbling, stumbling:

http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_14240.shtml

Given this track record, it is inexplicable to me that anyone might vote for Bush. To do so would constitute a stunning display of deliberate, self-imposed stupidity.

What would he have to fark up to scare some of you off? What more do you need to see?

Yet another reason to vote for Kerry!

DrZombie:

He was jailed back then too, and tortured and then executed... remember?

I love how Bush supporters feel it's perfectly acceptable to throw out three ladies wearing t-shirts because it was a "private event".
I'm still waiting for a justification that "protect civil liberties" is causing a disruption. This is a nuetral statement, not unlike the phrase, "protect our Constitution".
So, if you want to call this a partisan attack, or as durang would have you believe, they were gonna cause a disruption in a matter of minutes, then you have to say that Bush is anti-civil liberties. Please, republicans, explain how this is a wrong conclusion.

hapless --

I think where we disagree is the you think it's already there. It's heading that way but we're still far from it as of yet. For production, we still produce ungodly amounts of food, cars, wood, paper, steel, copper, nickel, etc...

Our manufacturing base in raw materials is still there and very much alive. The reason why we also have such a large service economy is because virtually all the afore mentioned industries have been radically changed with the advent of heavy machinery, robotics, and computerization that freed up the labor to create that service industry.

Don't be fooled, just because we have an ever enlarging service industry as a result of job reduction in manufacturing, doesn't mean our actual production from manufacturing has decreased. More efficient methods of manufacturing have led to the job loss in those sectors, not the loss of manufacturing itself.

I am beginning to think that the Republican Party is now a faith based orginzation. They can ignore reality as long as they have faith. Logic, reason, and the facts are testing the faithful. The rich whiteys are the leaders of said faith. The uneducated masses of the middle class that follow the Rep. party line are the congregation. I just wish that party line led right off a really high cliff...

We don't need this president, and we don't need those that follow this president, to make the USA great again.

Do your part, run over the nearest Republican you can see, and vote ABB2004.

hehehe, just kidding...

or am I?

Let's put it another way: What are you pretending to NOT know?

THE REAL REASONS THE WOMEN WERE THREATENED WITH ARREST BY THE BUSH CAMPAIGN:

1. They dared to wear garments displaying words containing more than two syllables. This was a grave insult to Bush, who, as everyone knows, has trouble with such words.

2. They are teachers. Remember, knowledge is a dangerous thing.

3. Civil liberties are for "liberated" Iraqis, not Americans, you silly rabbit!

Dasboot

But I was making the point that same Jesus Christ, transplanted to today, Bushs' "favorite philosopher", would probably be regarded as a religious nut (best case) or incarcerated as a terrorist (middle of the road) or something worse that escapes me (worst case).

I'm not disregarding the Romans laid the smack down on Christ (if he existed). They knew how to instill fear, believe you me. I just think the irony (beautiful that it is) is that our current administration rails against terrorists... terrorists this, terrorist that. Yet our leader proclaims nothing but love for a man, who was in his time and place, considered a terrorist, that which he proclaims to be out to destroy (terrorism). Seems I took the round about way of getting around to saying that.

Hey, maybe Bush has an economic plan after all. He is going to convert America into a Police state so that all the immigrants and illegal aliens are going to be like "Fark this, we getting the fark outta here." Leaving more crappy, low paying jobs for the American citizens. See, he is creating more jobs, way to go Bush, you farking douche bag!

Vote! For God sakes Vote!

Why does anyone still suport Bush? I honestly don't get it.

The shirt police, they are inside of my closet
The shirt police, the come to me for deposit
The shirt police (police, police)
The shirt police (police, police)

Why does anyone still suport Bush? I honestly don't get it.

Me neither. It's a wacko religious cult, apparently. They can't think of a good argument, but they're sure they're right. If you don't like it, the point can be reinforced with... well, force.

DrPsycho

Chretien didn't break the guy's teeth. His bodyguards did in the beatdown that followed.

When the prime ministers manhandles you to the ground, you STAY down!

Lord_Baull
Has there even been a rally for Bush that was attended by anyone not a staunch Bush apologist? What does this say for our President? To me, it says, i want to talk to only a certain group of people, and everyone who disagrees with me has no right to be here. Which in turn, suggests he (Bush) isn't interested in my opinions. I invite a conservative member of our nation to show me I am wrong in this conclusion.

Vice President Hubert Humphrey (a Democrat, mind you), when confronted one time with some rowdy anti-Vietnam war protestors, was quoted as saying, "Everyone has a right to their opinion. They don't necessarily have the right to have that opinion taken seriously."

When the Democrats stop supporting activists who crash Bush rallies like a bunch of ill-mannered louts then turn around and whine about their 1st amendment rights being "violated", then maybe the Republicans won't need to turn them away at the door.

Start acting like a grown up, and maybe you'll be treated like one.

This was by far the most frightening thread I've read on Fark, and that is more frightening than words can express.

Most frightening of all, and is not hearsay, is the quote by Jackson County Republican Chairman Bryan Platt. "and we'll stand behind that. I wish (the women) would have just dressed in a way that was without that kind of intent to incite any kind of incident."

How can ANYONE not find that statement horrifying. With that kind of attitude more and more obvious in the ranks of the Republican party: even if you are generally more conservative (small gov't, anti-abortion, pro death-penalty, buy into the fear, etc) which I can understand without agreeing with (I agree with some points, not others); how in the world can you possibly vote for this government and allow fascism to gain a greater foothold in the US (it obviously already has one).

Please, please for the love of God or Country or Humanity, vote against this attitude. If you hate Kerry that much, vote for a 3rd party or Bugs Bunny or anyone, as close as this election is you'll be helping to decide the result anyway and that sort of protest vote might have more impact in the long run.

This thread finally proves it: BUSH IS A UNITER

Why does anyone still suport Bush? I honestly don't get it.

It's a mystery.

When the Democrats stop supporting activists who crash Bush rallies like a bunch of ill-mannered louts

There's no allegation that they crashed the event, they had tickets. There's no allegation that they were ill-mannered either. When the facts aren't on your side, do you really consider it acceptable to flat-out lie?

hapless

You must love Kuhn. I do too.

Uh... I have probably spoken too strongly. I admit this is a mistake. However, when I see ideas like this expressed it just makes me hopping mad at the education system in this country. Children should be taught this stuff in Junior High.

I agree that there is some selection that members of a group do that could affect their group (for example, selectively not eating close kin in an aggressive, competitive environment). While I don't think that this is altruistic (for what should be obvious genetic reasons), I do think that it can effect the health of a group, in this case a kingroup.

I may place too much emphasis on Dawkins for my own good. Thank you for disabusing my soap box issues a bit.

Skitz

I actually got a kick out of those. Bush certainly sucks at public speaking.

"We all thought there was weapons there, Robin. My opponent thought there was weapons there."

I am certain that this is an over reaction by some of the less moderate jack booted storm troopers employed by our brave saudi-american president.

I really don't see why people make such an issue over something like this.

Well, anyway it will become a moot point when congress suspends the constitution after this election.

Or, am I the only one that sees that coming?