Well, if you go back and check, you'll see that there were designated "free speech zones" back in 1996 at both the DNC and RNC national conventions. And if Bush had anything at all to do with it, why would he allow so many protestors in New York and clamp down on them so hard at the DNC? Also, remember that the reason they started coming about in the 90's was because of the violent anarchist protestors who caused serious disruption to a wide variety of major events, especially global economic summits, during that time period.
And to me- that was a good thing to disrupt those evil summits that were more for the corporations than the people- the WTO has NO business being in our lives to begin with at all. See below for more on that. But I'll grant you that this destruction of our freedom of speech isn't all Bush's fault (but it may be Clinton's- I hate neoliberals just as much).
I'm just not as worried as you are about a few prisoners in Guatanamo or Iraq feeling humiliated after trying to blow up our troops, not to mention innocent Iraqis.
Do you know anything about semitic family honor? Do you even begin to understand how bad this was in the system that puts death before dishonor, and that charges the sons and nephews and even distant cousins to gain vengance against dishonor?
Overtime laws have not been revoked, just modified and simplified a bit. Before these changes, some poor schmuck making $18,000 a year could have been stuck doing unpaid overtime if the corporate powers-that-be could find a way to classify him as a managerial employee. Now the rule is simpler, and says that if you make less than a certain amount, you get overtime, regardless of your job description.
And now the poor schmuck making over $18,000/year loses his. If you're going to simplify the rule in this way, why not just go all the way- EVERYBODY gets overtime, even the salaried employees, managers, and self-employed bosses, and then create a maximum wage law?
I'm not nearly as opposed to unions as many Republicans, but you do understand that there's an economic reason that many jobs are going oversees, don't you? Part of that reason is the relatively high wages in the United States compared to the rest of the world. If companies can't modify the wages here to lower costs, they will, whether you like it or not, simply ship jobs elsewhere, to a place they can pay wages which are a LOT lower.
That wouldn't be so if we were still a country instead of just a puppet government of the WTO. Tarrifs used to be used to prevent this, and we didn't used to trade with countries that didn't have our labor standards. That's WHY the anarchists got violent at trade summits- and that's why I'm going to give democracy only one more chance in 2008 before hanging it up entirely and starting to defend my home against the evil corporations no matter what it takes.
We started out as a government of, by, and for the people. It's been very sad watching the corporations take over, and it's almost done, you're completely correct, they will ship the jobs overseas. But what we can do about it is deny them access to our market- and charge any corporation exporting our intellectual property outside of the United States for ANY reason with treason. Such companies should be confiscated, taken away from their stockholders, and turned over to the electorate- the real concience of the nation.
Neocon what is this term, some nifty new word to say Conservative? How could you be a "new" conservative? Does that mean moderate? Or only slightly less conservative?
The neoconservative movement, as it has grown in the last 20 years, seeks to get votes by promising moral changes that never actually occur, in an attempt to replace government with business world wide. The neoliberal movement likewise promises economic changes that never actually appear, in an attempt to replace government with business worldwide. The last 4 Presidents of the United States have belonged to one or the other of these movements, but W was the first to have a neoconservative lock on both the White House and the legislative branch, and if he succeeds in the next election, he'll be the first neo-anything to have a lock on the judiciary as well, thus the problem.
Kerry isn't much of a solution either- he's as neoliberal as Clinton was.
I want someone who's beliefs don't involve devestating a foreign nation and the nation of purple can't guarantee that.
Absolutely correct- until we are unified again and kick the neos and their corporations out, we won't be anything but an instrument for destruction- a puppet government of the Corporations, By the Corporations, For the Corporations.
Hey political ostrich, how about you use the phrase "a nation divided" productively. In this world,
A nation divided doesn't *tend* to go totalitarion.
It has since 1918, with the Russian Civil War. Almost every civil war since then has resulted in a totalitarian regime. So sorry- we're not in the 1860s anymore, and yes, a nation divided in TODAY'S world has a tendency to go totalitarian.
First of all, thank you for this message. I and most of the rest of the country were unaware there was an election scheduled in 2001 on that day.
But we've got some big differences here: the highest law in the land is SCOTUS, not the city court system- and the Republicans did not control SCOTUS in 2001. If SCOTUS decided, or it was decided for them, to completely nullify the Constitution and force a third Continental Congress, their power is such that they can do so IF they have the backing of the other two branches. That's where the danger lies- in a complete nullification of the current Constitution and a new Continental Congress called.
And- worse yet, it's within the "New World Order" proposed by Bush's Father, continued by the neoliberal Clinton, and still being worked on by W: a world controled not by law, not by democracy, but by corporations and money. If the neoconservatives OR the neoliberals are going to reach this goal, the Constitution will have to be nullified at some point and Democracy will be replaced with Corporatism.
Need more proof? Just look at the current attempt to eliminate the Income Tax.
Do you honestly believe Bush is even close to that level of morality?
Of course he isn't- which is why I phrased the GP the way I did. It's late enough that I can explain the joke:
Option 1. Bush defies history and finds a way to make Trickle Down work, not only funding the war in Iraq but ushering in a new era of economic prosperity.
Option 2. Trickle down doesn't work, but it also becomes illegal to criticize el Presidente Jorge Boosh once he becomes dictator for life, so you won't be ALLOWED to say so.:-)
Absolutely true- but at least the parasites (and those companies are parasites, no matter where they go they're living off people smarter and more talented than they are) will be there, not here. If we can get rid of our idle class- the rich investors- and send them to China and India, they will raise those countries standard of living and hamper THEIR resarch and development with their stupid idea that profit is the only thing that matters.
Once our society is free of the rich, then we will be able to lower our living costs, cut back to bare bones, and out innovate everybody once again, just like we did BEFORE corporations gained supreme power in the 1980s.
I doubt very much we will do this under Kerry or Bush- but at the rate either one is going, our children will owe so much money to the rest of the world that we'll be forced into it sooner rather than later.
Since when did facing a physical threat have anything to do with NUANCED THINKING? Do you really think bin Laden is doing NUANCED THINKING? Do you think Atta was spending his time doing NUANCED THINKING before he flew his plane into the building? I don't think so- but then again, I've actually studied the historical periods in time when great empires faced the threat of terrorism, and how successfull they were in countering that threat.
I've got news for you- there is no way that the United States is going to come through this with Nuanced Thinking, our morals and economics intact. No way in hell. No solution lies down that road at all.
If you want to be a slave to corporate or religious interests- keep going with your nuanced thinking, because that's the way that leads. Bold times call for bold measures- we've been attacked and we're at war. We are responsible for the crimes done by our ancestors, sure, but that was then and this is now.
Somebody who has access to the bug tracking database REALLY needs to enter it as a priority EMERGENCY security bug (I don't have access to that webpage from work). I recieved threating e-mail for my story from the guy in my sig line over the weekend; the lack of ability to filter Politics out of the main page is a major bug.
Are you afraid of negative publicity from old children's shows with your last name?
Re:Of course the candidates are in favor!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Actually, even people WITH the Marxist prefix are unable to buy the 'attacked economically' stuff until it happens to them, personally. And it doesn't just happen to poor little socialists either- it's happened to rich capitalists more than once, they don't call it a hostile takeover for nothing.
Both parties are guilty of #1. One important one you forgot to mention was the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the Fourth Amendment--we are now required to produce "your papers" on demand from armed agents of the state. Even the cases where 4th Amendment rights were upheld were 5-4, with Scalia in the minority. Don't expect that to happen again if W gets to appoint four justices.
Oh yeah- the ID bit. I'm not sure whether it would happen with W judges or not. I hadn't heard of protestors being asked to sign loyalty oaths at Kerry appearances though.
How are your robberies related to a republican being president?
Lowering of standard of living in my community caused a general increase in the crime rate. Cutting taxes that forced cuts in the courts and police didn't help matters much either.
Your livelihood was ripped away, I assume you mean you were laid off and couldn't get a job? That's the bubbles fault.
If we had sent home the H-1bs at the crash of the bubble, nobody would have lost their jobs- and the crash of the bubble happened on W's watch.
And the Free Speech Zones are not something that are unique to republicans, so I still see no reasoning behind the paranoia.
Since when? I can go up to Kerry at any one of his appearances and ask him a question- people carrying pro-Bush signs have. But Bush appearances require $300 tickets, loyalty oaths, and all protestors kept 1/2 mile away from travel routes and 3 miles away from appearances.
Sgt, if a mere civilian may ask a question: Would you respect a CiC if he never served, but if his first executive order was for the military to defend their own lives first, the country second, and policy third? I ask because I'm looking at putting together a third party and realize that while I have read quite widely in military history, and feel I'm a pretty good srategist, I have no real world experience and only limited cyber experience to test that against. And I want my planks concerning the military to be realistic.
MOD PARENT UP- I personally think that neither Kerry nor Bush will be able to avoid a draft if we ever are able to extracate ourselves from Iraq, but it sure as hell ain't happening soon whether the neocons stay in charge (because the chickenhawks avoided the draft the first time around when it was legal, what makes you think they'll institute it now?) or not (because Kerry won't have enough votes in Congress to get it passed).
I try to tell you guys- genocide is only half the story, and both genocide and surrender are taken from historical examples of how to deal with terrorism.
And I pine for the day when we can...then the discussions in politics will be all strong opinion and none of this "politics doesn't matter to nerds" nonsense from the few who haven't lost a job to a younger guy from India lately.
Entirely possible, but even paranoids have their enemies. In the last 4 years, I've been sent to the Free Speech Zone cages twice, had my entire livelihood ripped away for two years, and dealt with four robberies. NOTHING like this happened under Clinton. So am I paranoid? Or just reacting to stuff that has already happened in an attempt to predict the future and avoid it happening again?
Ok- so it's a belief held on the past. I would point out, however, that never before have we had *both* a group of people dead set against civil liberties *and* that group of people having control of all three branches of government. Perhaps you're right and the Democrats will win in the House and the Senate, preventing such a disaster from happening. But perhaps you're wrong too- and without the judiciary on our side, there's literally NOTHING left to protect the Consititution and the Bill of Rights if the neocons choose to do away with it.
In the case of either Bush or Kerry wining by a large margin and my vote not being worth a damn anyway, I'm with you- he's at least the least objectionable of the third party choices (Nader's back on my ballot, but after his supporters copied names out of the phone book to get him there, I'm not very supportive of him).
I was just expressing the two most outlandish views of what might happen- and who knows, Bush might defy history if he gets his hands on all three branches, or at the very least, you won't be allowed to say that trickle down doesn't work anymore.
You guys on the left just love to exaggerate, and I'm not sure if it helps you.
The truth is somewhere between the extremes- my questions list the extremes.
I mean, Stalin means the Gulag! Stalin means farmers being executed for not giving up all their food to the State!
Stalin also meant an end to party politics in Russia- effectively the one party state with him at it's head and all others executed or done in. That was my thought as to where a lock on all three branches might lead. Get past your prejudices and think for a second.
I personally guarantee you that George Bush is not Hitler, or Stalin, and the simple act of saying he is, or might be, is ridiculous.
Stalin and Hitler weren't Stalin and Hitler before they were elected and their parties got a lock on all three branches of government either.
I think any government that wants to survive would wind up curtailing civil liberties in the name of capturing Al Queda and friends. I really doubt that John Kerry, should he become President, would do much different from Bush on this question one way or the other.
Now that is likely very true- but now let me ask you- if either side, Democrats or Republicans, were faced with al Qaida AND was able to get a lock on the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive Branches, would that be better or worse than the same government having a political lock on only 2 out of the 3?
The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France, and I don't know if that's an improvement even in civil liberties terms.
We'd also get a President that would be facing a hostile Congress that would slow down his agenda considerably.
Under whatever leader we wind up with, you will not be prevented from comparing him to Hitler, or marching for hours screaming at the top of your lungs that he's evil. None of those rights are in any danger today. Not even the right to make a complete fool of yourself.
Haven't tried to join in an anti-Bush rally at any of his appearances, have you? (of course not, your next paragraph says that you are PRO-Bush). Just a hint- when Kerry's in town, you're likely to get as close to him as you want. When Bush is in town, your counterparts on the other side aren't allowed within 1/2 mile of the route or 3 miles of the actual appearance location. This has been enforced even in such liberal right-to-free-speech towns as Portland, OR. In fact, we had a very neat comparison of the two out here a few weeks ago. Bush traveled in secret, his route unknown until a few minutes before, tying up traffic wherever he went, and Sunset High in Beaverton was swept by Secret Service Agents before he arrived for anybody who didn't sign a loyalty oath, who were sent down to Evelyn Schiffler Park, across from my house. Kerry, on the other hand, gave out his route ahead of time so that he didn't cause traffic tie ups, and held his speech in Waterfront Park in Portland, and all were welcome.
I belong to a pro-Bush protest organization, and I enjoy making a complete fool of myself sometimes, so relax. Neither of us are going to be prevented from expressing our views.
I already have been twice- but the courts have OK'd free speech zones, so there's nothing I can do about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if you go back and check, you'll see that there were designated "free speech zones" back in 1996 at both the DNC and RNC national conventions. And if Bush had anything at all to do with it, why would he allow so many protestors in New York and clamp down on them so hard at the DNC? Also, remember that the reason they started coming about in the 90's was because of the violent anarchist protestors who caused serious disruption to a wide variety of major events, especially global economic summits, during that time period.
And to me- that was a good thing to disrupt those evil summits that were more for the corporations than the people- the WTO has NO business being in our lives to begin with at all. See below for more on that. But I'll grant you that this destruction of our freedom of speech isn't all Bush's fault (but it may be Clinton's- I hate neoliberals just as much).
I'm just not as worried as you are about a few prisoners in Guatanamo or Iraq feeling humiliated after trying to blow up our troops, not to mention innocent Iraqis.
Do you know anything about semitic family honor? Do you even begin to understand how bad this was in the system that puts death before dishonor, and that charges the sons and nephews and even distant cousins to gain vengance against dishonor?
Overtime laws have not been revoked, just modified and simplified a bit. Before these changes, some poor schmuck making $18,000 a year could have been stuck doing unpaid overtime if the corporate powers-that-be could find a way to classify him as a managerial employee. Now the rule is simpler, and says that if you make less than a certain amount, you get overtime, regardless of your job description.
And now the poor schmuck making over $18,000/year loses his. If you're going to simplify the rule in this way, why not just go all the way- EVERYBODY gets overtime, even the salaried employees, managers, and self-employed bosses, and then create a maximum wage law?
I'm not nearly as opposed to unions as many Republicans, but you do understand that there's an economic reason that many jobs are going oversees, don't you? Part of that reason is the relatively high wages in the United States compared to the rest of the world. If companies can't modify the wages here to lower costs, they will, whether you like it or not, simply ship jobs elsewhere, to a place they can pay wages which are a LOT lower.
That wouldn't be so if we were still a country instead of just a puppet government of the WTO. Tarrifs used to be used to prevent this, and we didn't used to trade with countries that didn't have our labor standards. That's WHY the anarchists got violent at trade summits- and that's why I'm going to give democracy only one more chance in 2008 before hanging it up entirely and starting to defend my home against the evil corporations no matter what it takes.
We started out as a government of, by, and for the people. It's been very sad watching the corporations take over, and it's almost done, you're completely correct, they will ship the jobs overseas. But what we can do about it is deny them access to our market- and charge any corporation exporting our intellectual property outside of the United States for ANY reason with treason. Such companies should be confiscated, taken away from their stockholders, and turned over to the electorate- the real concience of the nation.
Neocon what is this term, some nifty new word to say Conservative? How could you be a "new" conservative? Does that mean moderate? Or only slightly less conservative?
The neoconservative movement, as it has grown in the last 20 years, seeks to get votes by promising moral changes that never actually occur, in an attempt to replace government with business world wide. The neoliberal movement likewise promises economic changes that never actually appear, in an attempt to replace government with business worldwide. The last 4 Presidents of the United States have belonged to one or the other of these movements, but W was the first to have a neoconservative lock on both the White House and the legislative branch, and if he succeeds in the next election, he'll be the first neo-anything to have a lock on the judiciary as well, thus the problem.
Kerry isn't much of a solution either- he's as neoliberal as Clinton was.
I want someone who's beliefs don't involve devestating a foreign nation and the nation of purple can't guarantee that.
Absolutely correct- until we are unified again and kick the neos and their corporations out, we won't be anything but an instrument for destruction- a puppet government of the Corporations, By the Corporations, For the Corporations.
Hey political ostrich, how about you use the phrase "a nation divided" productively. In this world, A nation divided doesn't *tend* to go totalitarion.
It has since 1918, with the Russian Civil War. Almost every civil war since then has resulted in a totalitarian regime. So sorry- we're not in the 1860s anymore, and yes, a nation divided in TODAY'S world has a tendency to go totalitarian.
First of all, thank you for this message. I and most of the rest of the country were unaware there was an election scheduled in 2001 on that day.
But we've got some big differences here: the highest law in the land is SCOTUS, not the city court system- and the Republicans did not control SCOTUS in 2001. If SCOTUS decided, or it was decided for them, to completely nullify the Constitution and force a third Continental Congress, their power is such that they can do so IF they have the backing of the other two branches. That's where the danger lies- in a complete nullification of the current Constitution and a new Continental Congress called.
And- worse yet, it's within the "New World Order" proposed by Bush's Father, continued by the neoliberal Clinton, and still being worked on by W: a world controled not by law, not by democracy, but by corporations and money. If the neoconservatives OR the neoliberals are going to reach this goal, the Constitution will have to be nullified at some point and Democracy will be replaced with Corporatism.
Need more proof? Just look at the current attempt to eliminate the Income Tax.
Do you honestly believe Bush is even close to that level of morality?
:-)
Of course he isn't- which is why I phrased the GP the way I did. It's late enough that I can explain the joke:
Option 1. Bush defies history and finds a way to make Trickle Down work, not only funding the war in Iraq but ushering in a new era of economic prosperity.
Option 2. Trickle down doesn't work, but it also becomes illegal to criticize el Presidente Jorge Boosh once he becomes dictator for life, so you won't be ALLOWED to say so.
Absolutely true- but at least the parasites (and those companies are parasites, no matter where they go they're living off people smarter and more talented than they are) will be there, not here. If we can get rid of our idle class- the rich investors- and send them to China and India, they will raise those countries standard of living and hamper THEIR resarch and development with their stupid idea that profit is the only thing that matters.
Once our society is free of the rich, then we will be able to lower our living costs, cut back to bare bones, and out innovate everybody once again, just like we did BEFORE corporations gained supreme power in the 1980s.
I doubt very much we will do this under Kerry or Bush- but at the rate either one is going, our children will owe so much money to the rest of the world that we'll be forced into it sooner rather than later.
Since when did facing a physical threat have anything to do with NUANCED THINKING? Do you really think bin Laden is doing NUANCED THINKING? Do you think Atta was spending his time doing NUANCED THINKING before he flew his plane into the building? I don't think so- but then again, I've actually studied the historical periods in time when great empires faced the threat of terrorism, and how successfull they were in countering that threat.
I've got news for you- there is no way that the United States is going to come through this with Nuanced Thinking, our morals and economics intact. No way in hell. No solution lies down that road at all.
If you want to be a slave to corporate or religious interests- keep going with your nuanced thinking, because that's the way that leads. Bold times call for bold measures- we've been attacked and we're at war. We are responsible for the crimes done by our ancestors, sure, but that was then and this is now.
Somebody who has access to the bug tracking database REALLY needs to enter it as a priority EMERGENCY security bug (I don't have access to that webpage from work). I recieved threating e-mail for my story from the guy in my sig line over the weekend; the lack of ability to filter Politics out of the main page is a major bug.
Are you afraid of negative publicity from old children's shows with your last name?
Actually, even people WITH the Marxist prefix are unable to buy the 'attacked economically' stuff until it happens to them, personally. And it doesn't just happen to poor little socialists either- it's happened to rich capitalists more than once, they don't call it a hostile takeover for nothing.
Both parties are guilty of #1. One important one you forgot to mention was the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the Fourth Amendment--we are now required to produce "your papers" on demand from armed agents of the state. Even the cases where 4th Amendment rights were upheld were 5-4, with Scalia in the minority. Don't expect that to happen again if W gets to appoint four justices.
Oh yeah- the ID bit. I'm not sure whether it would happen with W judges or not. I hadn't heard of protestors being asked to sign loyalty oaths at Kerry appearances though.
Not to be a wet blanket, but isn't Futurama a Matt Groening creation?
How are your robberies related to a republican being president?
Lowering of standard of living in my community caused a general increase in the crime rate. Cutting taxes that forced cuts in the courts and police didn't help matters much either.
Your livelihood was ripped away, I assume you mean you were laid off and couldn't get a job? That's the bubbles fault.
If we had sent home the H-1bs at the crash of the bubble, nobody would have lost their jobs- and the crash of the bubble happened on W's watch.
And the Free Speech Zones are not something that are unique to republicans, so I still see no reasoning behind the paranoia.
Since when? I can go up to Kerry at any one of his appearances and ask him a question- people carrying pro-Bush signs have. But Bush appearances require $300 tickets, loyalty oaths, and all protestors kept 1/2 mile away from travel routes and 3 miles away from appearances.
Sgt, if a mere civilian may ask a question: Would you respect a CiC if he never served, but if his first executive order was for the military to defend their own lives first, the country second, and policy third? I ask because I'm looking at putting together a third party and realize that while I have read quite widely in military history, and feel I'm a pretty good srategist, I have no real world experience and only limited cyber experience to test that against. And I want my planks concerning the military to be realistic.
MOD PARENT UP- I personally think that neither Kerry nor Bush will be able to avoid a draft if we ever are able to extracate ourselves from Iraq, but it sure as hell ain't happening soon whether the neocons stay in charge (because the chickenhawks avoided the draft the first time around when it was legal, what makes you think they'll institute it now?) or not (because Kerry won't have enough votes in Congress to get it passed).
I try to tell you guys- genocide is only half the story, and both genocide and surrender are taken from historical examples of how to deal with terrorism.
RTFA- They admit we've had one party control at least three times in the past, and they compare the current administration to those times.
And I pine for the day when we can...then the discussions in politics will be all strong opinion and none of this "politics doesn't matter to nerds" nonsense from the few who haven't lost a job to a younger guy from India lately.
My personal evidence:
1. Free Speech Zones- who ever heard of caging protestors beofore W was in office?
2. Geneva Convention "shortcuts" in the prisons.
3. Overtime laws revoked.
4. Support of unionless workplaces
Those are my personal four- and only one is tangenitally linked to the Patriot act, but all 4 have been getting quite strong in the last 4 years.
Entirely possible, but even paranoids have their enemies. In the last 4 years, I've been sent to the Free Speech Zone cages twice, had my entire livelihood ripped away for two years, and dealt with four robberies. NOTHING like this happened under Clinton. So am I paranoid? Or just reacting to stuff that has already happened in an attempt to predict the future and avoid it happening again?
Now that's the first real defense I've heard for NOT meeting those jetliners in the air. I'm glad I asked for this story today!
Funny how he entirely reversed that behavior once he got into office and stopped reading newspapers, isn't it?
Ok- so it's a belief held on the past. I would point out, however, that never before have we had *both* a group of people dead set against civil liberties *and* that group of people having control of all three branches of government. Perhaps you're right and the Democrats will win in the House and the Senate, preventing such a disaster from happening. But perhaps you're wrong too- and without the judiciary on our side, there's literally NOTHING left to protect the Consititution and the Bill of Rights if the neocons choose to do away with it.
In the case of either Bush or Kerry wining by a large margin and my vote not being worth a damn anyway, I'm with you- he's at least the least objectionable of the third party choices (Nader's back on my ballot, but after his supporters copied names out of the phone book to get him there, I'm not very supportive of him).
I was just expressing the two most outlandish views of what might happen- and who knows, Bush might defy history if he gets his hands on all three branches, or at the very least, you won't be allowed to say that trickle down doesn't work anymore.
You guys on the left just love to exaggerate, and I'm not sure if it helps you.
The truth is somewhere between the extremes- my questions list the extremes.
I mean, Stalin means the Gulag! Stalin means farmers being executed for not giving up all their food to the State!
Stalin also meant an end to party politics in Russia- effectively the one party state with him at it's head and all others executed or done in. That was my thought as to where a lock on all three branches might lead. Get past your prejudices and think for a second.
I personally guarantee you that George Bush is not Hitler, or Stalin, and the simple act of saying he is, or might be, is ridiculous.
Stalin and Hitler weren't Stalin and Hitler before they were elected and their parties got a lock on all three branches of government either.
I think any government that wants to survive would wind up curtailing civil liberties in the name of capturing Al Queda and friends. I really doubt that John Kerry, should he become President, would do much different from Bush on this question one way or the other.
Now that is likely very true- but now let me ask you- if either side, Democrats or Republicans, were faced with al Qaida AND was able to get a lock on the Judiciary, the Legislature, and the Executive Branches, would that be better or worse than the same government having a political lock on only 2 out of the 3?
The only thing we would gain from John Kerry is a government that's a slave to France, and I don't know if that's an improvement even in civil liberties terms.
We'd also get a President that would be facing a hostile Congress that would slow down his agenda considerably.
Under whatever leader we wind up with, you will not be prevented from comparing him to Hitler, or marching for hours screaming at the top of your lungs that he's evil. None of those rights are in any danger today. Not even the right to make a complete fool of yourself.
Haven't tried to join in an anti-Bush rally at any of his appearances, have you? (of course not, your next paragraph says that you are PRO-Bush). Just a hint- when Kerry's in town, you're likely to get as close to him as you want. When Bush is in town, your counterparts on the other side aren't allowed within 1/2 mile of the route or 3 miles of the actual appearance location. This has been enforced even in such liberal right-to-free-speech towns as Portland, OR. In fact, we had a very neat comparison of the two out here a few weeks ago. Bush traveled in secret, his route unknown until a few minutes before, tying up traffic wherever he went, and Sunset High in Beaverton was swept by Secret Service Agents before he arrived for anybody who didn't sign a loyalty oath, who were sent down to Evelyn Schiffler Park, across from my house. Kerry, on the other hand, gave out his route ahead of time so that he didn't cause traffic tie ups, and held his speech in Waterfront Park in Portland, and all were welcome.
I belong to a pro-Bush protest organization, and I enjoy making a complete fool of myself sometimes, so relax. Neither of us are going to be prevented from expressing our views.
I already have been twice- but the courts have OK'd free speech zones, so there's nothing I can do about it.