I havnt been on in about 2 months, i just got back from the World Cup in germany and touring europe.

When i left here everyone was talking about 911 its a conspiracy its a lie etc, we all know the facts the evidence everything to do with the conspiracy.

What i dont understand is why dont the American public actually do something about it, i mean the only way to actually bring down the evil empire (George Bush Admin) is for everyone who believes it is a conspiracy should unite worldwide and get some kind of march happening.

With the tens of thousands marching along a street is going to create alot of media publicity so i mean we all know the Government in the US controls the media but gathering tens of thousands of people to march is going to create speculation among the non believers to actually get off there ass and do some research.....

I mean i already know 1000's here in Sydney that think it is a conspiracy maybe we can all set a date send professional emails to everyone in our email databases and get the ball rolling...

Just a suggestion, i hate sitting around knowing the evil bush admin. had something to do with 911..
Cheers

BZRK

Good to see you back BZRK.

Part of the problem in America is that anyone who stands up and says Bush is doing "wrong", they are accused of being traitors, or aiding the terrorists. It's kind of how we got into the conversation about them setting up fenced in zones where they force the people who disagree with Bush to go, when he's around.

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
— Harry S. Truman

In fact, I just came across a perfect article for this argument. Just came out yesterday.

Read this Aquatus, and Eggy. Hopefully this will be the examples you were asking for before:

Arrested Bush Dissenters Eye Courts

(AP)
By TODD DVORAK

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) - When school was canceled to accommodate a campaign visit by President Bush, the two 55-year-old teachers reckoned the time was ripe to voice their simmering discontent with the administration's policies.

Christine Nelson showed up at the Cedar Rapids rally with a Kerry-Edwards button pinned on her T-shirt; Alice McCabe clutched a small, paper sign stating "No More War." What could be more American, they thought, than mixing a little dissent with the bunting and buzz of a get-out-the-vote rally headlined by the president?

Their reward: a pair of handcuffs and a strip search at the county jail.

Authorities say they were arrested because they refused to obey reasonable security restrictions, but the women disagree: "Because I had a dissenting opinion, they did what they needed to do to get me out of the way," said Nelson, who teaches history and government at one of this city's middle schools.

"I tell my students all the time about how people came to this country for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, that those rights and others are sacred. And all along I've been thinking to myself, 'not at least during this administration.'"

Their experience is hardly unique.

In the months before the 2004 election, dozens of people across the nation were banished from or arrested at Bush political rallies, some for heckling the president, others simply for holding signs or wearing clothing that expressed opposition to the war and administration policies.

Similar things have happened at official, taxpayer-funded, presidential visits, before and after the election. Some targeted by security have been escorted from events, while others have been arrested and charged with misdemeanors that were later dropped by local prosecutors.

Now, in federal courthouses from Charleston, W.Va., to Denver, federal officials and state and local authorities are being forced to defend themselves against lawsuits challenging the arrests and security policies.

While the circumstances differ, the cases share the same fundamental themes. Generally, they accuse federal officials of developing security measures to identify, segregate, deny entry or expel dissenters.

Jeff Rank and his wife, Nicole, filed a lawsuit after being handcuffed and booted from a July 4, 2004, appearance by the president at the West Virginia Capitol in Charleston. The Ranks, who now live in Corpus Christi, Texas, had free tickets to see the president speak, but contend they were arrested and charged with trespassing for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts.

"It's nothing more than an attempt by the president and his staff to suppress free speech," said Andrew Schneider, executive director of the ACLU of West Virginia, which is providing legal services for the Ranks.

"What happened to the Ranks, and so many others across the country, was clearly an incident of viewpoint discrimination. And the lawsuit is an attempt to make the administration accountable for what we believe were illegal actions," Schneider said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Leslie Weise says law enforcers are violating citizens' rights to voice objections within earshot of the president.

Last year, in Denver, Weise and two friends were evicted from a Bush town hall meeting on Social Security reform.

Weise, a 40-year-old environmental lawyer who is now a stay-at-home mother, opposes the war in Iraq and the administration's energy policies. Like friends Alex Young and Karen Bauer, Weise did some volunteer work for the Kerry campaign.

In the days before Bush's March 2005 town hall meeting, the trio toyed briefly with the notion of actively protesting the visit. But they said they decided against it because they had heard of arrests at Bush appearances in North Dakota and Arizona.

After parking Weise's car, the three, dressed in professional attire and holding tickets obtained from their local congressman, arrived at the Wings Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum. Young cleared security, but Weise and Bauer were briefly detained and told by staff they had been "identified" and would be arrested if they tried "any funny stuff," according to court records.

After finding their seats, they were approached again by staff and removed before Bush began speaking. Days later, Weise learned from Secret Service in Denver that a bumper sticker on her green Saab hatchback - "No More Blood for Oil" - caught the attention of security.

"I had every reason to attend that event, just as anyone else in the room had that day," said Weise. "If we raised security to a higher level just because we had an opinion different from the administration, I think that goes far beyond what is appropriate for this country."

Lawsuits by protesters are not always embraced by the courts. In Pennsylvania, a federal judge dismissed a suit challenging the arrests of six men who stripped down to thongs and formed a pyramid to protest the Abu Ghraib scandal when Bush paid a visit to Lancaster.

The judge ruled the authorities acted with probable cause and are entitled to qualified immunity, shielding them from liability. The ruling is on appeal.

Such efforts to segregate or diminish dissent are hardly new to American politics.

The ACLU has sued several presidents over attempts to silence opposition, as in 1997, when President Clinton tried to prevent protesters from lining his inaugural parade route. And during the tumultuous 1960s, it was not uncommon for hecklers and protesters to be whisked away or managed at a distance from rallies and events.

"In my mind, it all started with Nixon. He was the first presidential candidate to really make an effort to control their image and disrupt public interruption at events," said Cary Covington, a political science professor at the University of Iowa.

But political experts say the 2004 Bush campaign rewrote the playbook for organizing campaign rallies.

At the Republican National Convention in New York City and at other campaign stops, security segregated protesters in designated "free speech zones" set up at a significant distance from each rally. To get into events headlined by Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, supporters were required to obtain tickets through GOP channels or sign loyalty oaths .

Political experts agree Bush 2004 went to greater lengths than Kerry officials - or any past campaign - to choreograph a seamless, partisan rally free of the embarrassing moments that attract media attention.

Gone are the days of candidates facing down hecklers or reacting to distractions like, the man who donned a chicken costume and pestered George H.W. Bush in 1991 after he balked at Bill Clinton's invitations to debate.

Anthony Corrado, a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution, said ticket-only events are an effective tool for rewarding legions of volunteers who work the phone banks, raise money and build support.

"In my view, the Republicans did a much better job of linking field volunteers with their schedule and events," Corrado said. "I had never seen it done to the extent it was on 2004 on the Republican side. And my guess is we'll probably see a lot more of it all."


http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php...FD8J152I80.html

What you don't understand is the tens of thousands of you is still outnumbered by Millions who sees it differently. Your wish would have become a reality by now if what you think is all true.

If one spends eight hours a day doing nothing but looking up support for their point of view, they tend to forget that other points of view have support as well.

Basically, since there is no hard and fast rule that states: "Free Speech Zones shall not be photographed or reported upon in any way", there is ambiguity in the purpose for their existences.

The Bush administration can say it's for the protection of the president and no one can officially dispute that, even though it seems apparent that they're also used to segregate dissention (since for some reason the media isn't allowed to report on them in nearly every instance).

So, since there is no official anti-media rule, there is a debate about their legality. Obviously, the administration sees that and will do nothing more to more clearly define the purpose of FSZs. Not real surprising, since this entire presidency seems to be *just barely* on the legal side of the law at all turns.

There is only ambiguity if you decide that the purpose of these zones is to restrict free speech. At that point, it becomes very ambiguous, as there is little that can be referred to as censorship when only one or two people are being arrested, by all accounts for disorderly conduct, and the vast majority of the protestors get to chant their message and go home at the end of the day.

If, on the other hand, one looks at the zones as what they are, i.e security devices, then their purpose is not ambiguous at all. They serve to isolate a possible security threat that would otherwise require far more resources than are available.



Why wouldn't you officially be able to dispute it? All you have to do is show that the barricades were placed there for the express purpose of suppressing a given viewpoint in an unlawful way. To do that, you would have to show that protestors have the same history of non-violence as advocates do. Good luck with that.

And it's pretty hard to support your claim that the media isn't allowed to report on protestors nealy every instance when the media isn't complaining about censorship (and please don't try to argue that the media has little problem with censorship; they would be on the frontlines of that debate) when the media, in pretty much every presidential outing, always has a mention of the protestors and what they are protesting.



Your arguments aren't making a whole lot of sense here. If there was an official anti-media rule, that would be unconstitutional (leastways, I can't think of how it could be defensible in the Supreme Court). But saying that since there is not, then there is debate about the legality of it, is like saying that, since there is no sign of a break-in, there is a debate about whether a criminal stole anything. Nonsense. You can't simply assume a crime has been committed, and then attempt to jam the evidence around it. Guilty till proven innocent does not apply. If you wish to claim that what are seen by security teams throughout the world as standard precautions are in fact forms of censorship, then you have to show that they are serving to suppress free speech. All you have shown so far is that they are preventing protestors from having a captive audience, which is not unconstitutional in any way, shape, or form.

Yeah, like I said, there's ambiguity. And because there's ambiguity (which of course you'll argue), you can post 5,000 word replies defending the need for FSZs. And you're not wrong. And I'm not wrong for having my opinion either.

You are correct, I will argue it. I have claimed that they are security measures, and explained why and how they serve as security measures. You have claimed they are a form of censorship, but have been unable to explain how they are censoring anything. My facts are not wrong. Nor is your opinion. But then, facts and opinions are not the same thing.

I doubt you are racist, but you have the same arguments as my friend who claims he's not "racist" against black people, he's just "prejudice" against "niggers". He thinks laws do not have to be followed by the government because they "always" have our best interests in mind anyways.

Who's to decide who is a threat to the president. What if you have a racist cop? He considers all black people a threat. So he tells them to go to the free speech zone. It's not because they are black, it's because they are considered a threat to the president. That's an analogy for you. It's not that all people with a different opinion of the president are dangerous, it just so happens that the only ones "we" consider a possible threat to the presidents security, just happen to disagree with the president.

That's how you don't consider it censorship of a dissenting political point of view, you consider it a security issue, that just so happens to only abuse the rights of those with dissenting view points.

Sad day for America when someone with a fascist viewpoint thinks they are a patriotic American citizen.

What it all comes down to is a different point of view, and different values.

I value freedom over security, while people like Aquatus value security over Freedom.


Like I posted before,

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams

You may think it's meaningless in a post 9/11 world with a hightened sence of security, and paranoia, but you still have not figured out that 9/11 worked for the benifit of Bush, and the motive would only benifit "The Plan". I think you would actually be behind the plan, considering your viewpoints.

I want to post some info about the NWO, I found recently, but I don't want to take the thread off on another tangent...

In conslusion, I think the constitution and founding fathers would agree with me, while those wanting to turn America into a dictatorship would agree with you Aquatus.

I fail to see how this reflects anything that I have said. 'Prejudice' against 'niggers' is indistinguishable from racism, while security threats are evaluated based on precedent, meaning that it is not something that is decided based on a given person's personal desires or biases, but rather on what past actions have been committed by a given group.



Then at that point it isn't an argument about censorship anymore, is it? At that point it is an isolated incident carried out by one person, not some pre-dictatorship step within some sort of conspiracy to take away everyone's civil rights.

Like I said, there is no "we" pushing their personal desires into the planning of security measures. Indeed, doing such a thing is both the height of unprofessionalism, and dangerous to boot, as isolating a specific racial group can lead precisely to the unmanagable situations that are trying to be avoided.

You are reaching further and further, and are now struggling to find some racist cop to show as proof that the U.S. government instituted free zones as a form of censorship. This is getting ridiculous.



Incorrect, and I will point out that yet again, you are trying to re-interpret my words into something that fits your pre-conception. You have a habit of doing this on a repetitive basis.

I have plainly stated, several times, that the zones are not for people with dissenting viewpoint. People who do not agree with the president can go into the convention without any problems. The zones are for the people who are protesting, meaning they are aggressively dissenting, and show every sign of wanting to disrupt the convention.



An even sadder day when a person resorts to insinuating their opponent is a racist simply because they have absolutely no other way to rebut the counters presented.



Wrong again. Security and freedom go hand in hand. Neither can exist without the other. I value the best possible balance between the two, because I understand that the world is an imperfect place. It isn't black and white to me.



I don't think it is meaningless at all. I think it is irrelevant to this context, and I said that before. Very patriotic and all, but ultimately, nothing more than pretty words you recite without understanding their true meaning. Do you even know what Samuel Adams was doing when he said this?

You have gone past scraping the bottom of the barrel in looking to defend your position, and have proceeded to look in the muck beneath. Not being able to show that these barriers are not security measures, not being able to show that the people within them are being censored, not even being able to show that there is any ambiguity in either of these points, you insinuate that I am a racist, you speculate that a single racist cop would indicate a government push to censorship, you repeatedly ignore my very plain explanation concerning actions over labels deciding who goes into zones, you insinuate that I am a fascist, you outright accuse me of favoring security over freedom, and you finally propose that I would be part of a planned dictatorship in the U.S.

Scoobysnack, you are shameful. This discussion is over.

no way it happens everywhere. wan't reported much, but happened alot during the Clinton admin. Clinton HATES free speech. Matter of fact, I'll have to make sure but... I'm pretty positive Clinton started the "free speech zones", not Bush.

I'm glad this is over. I think if you were told the Jews were a threat president, you would follow orders from Hitler, and put them in concentration camps, for the security of the country of course. That's exactly what Hitler did.

I never said you were a racist. That was an analogy, like I stated. Just like my friend is engaged in double think, thinking he's not racist , you think banning people who have a anti bush bumper sticker is not censorship, for you its justified because it's security.

By the way there is another thread about this very topic, and you can see almost no one agrees with you:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=74798

PS, do you know anything about cointelpro? Basically the FBI infiltraits a protest group and incites violence as an excuse for the authorities to arrest or clamp down on the rights of the group as a whole.

For the record, I was the only one who offered any evidence of my point of view. Articles from the news, etc. Aquatus relied solely on his personal perception and opinion. That opinion was based on not seeing any evidence of censorship, and assuming it wasn't going on, if he hadn't heard about it yet. The only reason he knew about any of this was because I told him.

I think you are a shamfull American citizen who should be ashamed of yourself.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
-- Teddy Roosevelt

Yes, there is a plan to destroy America:

"The high office of the president has been used to foment a plot to destroy America's freedom, and before I leave office, I must inform the citizens of their plight."
― Pres. John F. Kennedy; in a speech at Columbia University, 1963; tens days before he was assassinated.

Sorry for the delay in replying Scoob, been busy.



Say whatever you like Scoob, knock yourself out.

confirmed it was Clinton that started the "free speech zones" on wiki... was pretty sure but there's been times my memory wasn't.

I researched this also Cel, discovered the same thing. I found it odd that Clinton didnt like oral freedom

I hear ya on that memory. I have to forget something in order to remember anything new. HA!

Clinton is better than Bush