Bush Heckled During July 4 Speech - Page 14 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

pramjockey · #**196** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Magic...

And I'm the magician.

solletica · #**197** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

I need someone to teach me what you did to my statement; how you split it into two so you could comment on both. I still don't know how you guys do that and I've been here for one presidential term already.

Because of the kind of ceremony it was, I say leave the poor guy alone. He wasn't there to rally his base but to welcome in new people to the country.

He offered a false impression of what that country is like, i. e. where you can challenge the power elite without fear.

The protesters corrected him by proving, w/a real-life demonstration, otherwise.

And I would think that it's only appropriate to give new citizens a taste of the reality of their new home. . .

. . .as opposed to the comfy illusion the pols want to create for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

I'm not saying hecklers don't have a right to heckle, but it's on the level of Dick Cheney standing around the Senate telling people to fuck off.

Why would he do that? They're all on the same side

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

They have a right to free speech, but they also have the burden of appearing like jerks, even if Bush is the worst President in the history of the country.

Any protester worth his salt always appears like a jerk.

A protest that isn't disruptive is pointless because it would attract next to no attention

You can't embarrass powerful folks by accommodating them; you can only do that by taking it to 'em in their comfort zone, i. e. official places where you're not supposed to disturb them.

Only a complete moron would protest only in "acceptable" places, i. e. where pols are engaging in ceremonies and want to be alone. Such a protest amounts to nada because hardly anyone will notice them. But by disrupting the proceeding where a pol is presiding, it creates havoc,

causing people to notice them, which is what they want. And, the fact that it got so many views on YouTube and people are discussing it here (negatively or otherwsie) pretty much proves they succeeded in drawing attention to themselves.

OTOH, if they did their protest politely, it's unlilkely they would've gotten so many views and nor would this thread have existed. Hello, logic.

Mrs. M · #**198** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

He offered a false impression of what that country is like, i. e. where you can challenge the power elite without fear.

The protesters corrected him by proving, w/a real-life demonstration, otherwise.

And I would think that it's only appropriate to give new citizens a taste of the reality of their new home. . .

. . .as opposed to the comfy illusion the pols want to create for them.

Why would he do that? They're all on the same side

Any protester worth his salt always appears like a jerk.

A protest that isn't disruptive is pointless because it would attract next to no attention

You can't embarrass powerful folks by accommodating them; you can only do that by taking it to 'em in their comfort zone, i. e. official places where you're not supposed to disturb them.

Only a complete moron would protest only in "acceptable" places, i. e. where pols are engaging in official business and want to be alone. Such a protest amounts to nada because hardly anyone will notice them. But by disrupting a an official ceremony where a pol is presiding, it creates havoc,

causing people to notice them, which is what they want. And, the fact that it got so many views on YouTube and people are discussing it here (negatively or otherwsie) pretty much proves they succeeded in drawing attention to themselves.

OTOH, if they did their protest politely, it's unlilkely they would've gotten so many views and nor would this thread have existed. Hello, logic.

Yes, cupcake, people are discussing it but all we're discussing is whether what he did was right or wrong, not the real content of his supposed message. Courteous people on both sides of the aisle realize that it was a stupid, selfish move. Ok, so you hate Bush...who the fuck cares? Is your hatred so important that you would ruin a ceremony for the innocent people attending it? I can't imagine ever being so selfish and self-centered that I would put my protesting rights above the enjoyment of others no matter how much I hated the politician. To do so with make me an asshole of the nth degree.

AjaxPress · #**199** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M
I'm not saying that anyone should be given a free pass but there are ways to disagree or protest without showing disrespect to the office. You catch a lot more flies with honey anyway!

How do you go about criticizing a person who surrounds himself with yes men and friendly crowds? You do remember the staged events where a child actually asked something along the lines of "Mr. President what can I do to help you?" This is a president who surrounds himself with "free speech zones" so that people who disagree with him never see the light of day.

Bush deserves all the heckling he gets.

Mrs. M · #**200** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

How do you go about criticizing a person who surrounds himself with yes men and friendly crowds? You do remember the staged events where a child actually asked something along the lines of "Mr. President what can I do to help you?" This is a president who surrounds himself with "free speech zones" so that people who disagree with him never see the light of day.

Bush deserves all the heckling he gets.

If you believe that it's okay to disrupt ceremonies just to run your mouth at the expense of others, then you're in the same category as Sam and sollectica....

solletica · #**201** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Yup. Imagine putting all that hard work and time in becoming a naturalized American citizen. It's a pound day for you, a special day. You've invited friends and family to come share it with you.

And some unconscionably rude, boorish dolt goes and screws it up for you.

most people wanna become citizens of the US not out of any sort of "pride" in being an American, but because they can enjoy the economic benefits, i. e. ability to work legally w/out an H1B, although seemingly, in the modern economy, that right is becoming widely available to even non-citizens.

And the protesters made it more for fun for them.

FYI, pretty much the whole world regards bush as an ignorant dork, so it's not like they were stunned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

It's certainly nothing to cheer for.

Really? I would have loved to see them get out the pom poms!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

But then, there are those who advocate disrupting funerals and tormenting the families of the dead......

Perfectly OK for a public funeral of a corrupt pol w/a record of deceipt. Private funerals, OTOH, are another matter.

But we all know Matt is not one of those posters who slippery slopes into false analogies, i. e. comparing this protest to say, the actions, of Fred Phelps, right?

kinda like Hannity made a fool of himself equating the racism of Rev. Wright to that of the Klan.

Benjamin · #**202** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

How do you go about criticizing a person who surrounds himself with yes men and friendly crowds? You do remember the staged events where a child actually asked something along the lines of "Mr. President what can I do to help you?" This is a president who surrounds himself with "free speech zones" so that people who disagree with him never see the light of day.

Bush deserves all the heckling he gets.

In all fairness, "Free Speech Zones" aren't just used by this President.

My point is that there should be a respect for the ceremony, not so much for the President. I dislike the President as much as those who argue the protests were justified.

That said, those being sworn in got a real taste of what it is to be an American.

Benjamin

solletica · #**203** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

If you believe that it's okay to disrupt ceremonies just to run your mouth at the expense of others, then you're in the same category as Sam and sollectica....

Yeah, we like to challenge pols as opposed to remaining silent, i. e. respecting their space. Dunno at whose expense this was--the new citizens got an appropriate dose of the reality of their new home. So maybe Mrs. M is referring to those who voted for the dude twice (in 2000 and 2004).

Ah, now I can see where the "at the expense of others" comes in

Jason Marcel · #**204** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

He offered a false impression of what that country is like, i. e. where you can challenge the power elite without fear.

The protesters corrected him by proving, w/a real-life demonstration, otherwise.

And I would think that it's only appropriate to give new citizens a taste of the reality of their new home. . .

. . .as opposed to the comfy illusion the pols want to create for them.

Why would he do that? They're all on the same side

Any protester worth his salt always appears like a jerk.

A protest that isn't disruptive is pointless because it would attract next to no attention

You can't embarrass powerful folks by accommodating them; you can only do that by taking it to 'em in their comfort zone, i. e. official places where you're not supposed to disturb them.

Only a complete moron would protest only in "acceptable" places, i. e. where pols are engaging in ceremonies and want to be alone. Such a protest amounts to nada because hardly anyone will notice them. But by disrupting the proceeding where a pol is presiding, it creates havoc,

causing people to notice them, which is what they want. And, the fact that it got so many views on YouTube and people are discussing it here (negatively or otherwsie) pretty much proves they succeeded in drawing attention to themselves.

OTOH, if they did their protest politely, it's unlilkely they would've gotten so many views and nor would this thread have existed. Hello, logic.

Only a complete moron would do as little as showing up at rallies of politicians they don't like.

I'll give American conservatives this much: they know how to organize. In the media they come off as clear, direct, and forceful, while American liberals come off as wishy-washy, weak, indirect, disorganized, and windy.

The Democrats were elected to Congress to bitch-slap Bush and end the freakin' war. What do they do? They end up giving him one blank check after another. The Liberal President gets oral sex and gets impeached while the Conservative President aggressively invades and occupies a nation filled with people who never did a thing to Americans, and liberals keep supporting it.

Yeah, heckling is about the least that you can do to express patriotism, next to wearing a flag-pin.

The Liberals have power to do something and they sit there with their fingers up their asses booing the guy.

Good work.

Republicans understand that politics is a streetfight. Canadian Liberals understand this much too, and that's why they've been in control of the gov't for something like 40 out of the last 51 years. There are problems in Canada like anywhere else, but on the whole, Canada is a perfect balance between America and Europe. Very chill country that's tolerant where people value just getting along and marijuana cigarettes over shooting each other up and starting arbitrary wars every few years.

The far right in America has far too much power. America isn't that far to the right, but who the hell cares to do anything about it? Liberals in America did a good thing a couple years ago by starting Air America or whatever it was called. They should have been doing that a long time ago. They need to press their case very aggressively, but they wimp out all the time. The public will always stray towards the party that knows itself, knows it's principles, and declares them loud and proud.

Wanna make a bet Obama stays in the centre the rest of the campaign? He already wants to kill child-rapists now. Want to bet that he ends up fudging the "ticking time bomb" scenario, too? And do you think he'll grow the backbone to stand up for his immigration policy? You know, the one that makes sense? He stood up for gays this past week, but do you think he'll mention a word about them this fall?

Mrs. M · #**205** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

I can see this discussion is going nowhere. There are a few that believe it's perfectly okay to act like an asshole because it's their "right" and then there are the more sane people that realize that with free speech comes responsibility and common courtesy. Maybe when those childish few grow up, they'll understand...

ViolaLee · #**206** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjamin

Agreed. I'm upset for the new citizens, really.

Benjamin

Why? Because they were shown, in person what a great country we have where citizens can speak out against the government? Maybe some of those people came from countries were you'd be killed for doing so. Perhaps those people are overjoyed with the freedom they have now, in this great country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

here are some clinton getting heckled articles just for shits and grins

Bill Clinton Heckled as 'War Criminal'

MyFox Los Angeles | Clinton Heckled During Forum on Global Warming in Los Angeles

YouTube - Clinton's Angry Response to Heckler

NewsLibrary.com - newspaper archive, clipping service - newspapers and other news sources

and here are some with clinton getting heckled at the Vietnam war memorial and by a veteran
The ghosts of Vietnam. (war veterans snub President Clinton at Memorial Day ceremonies) (American Survey) (Column) | Economist (US), The | Find Articles at BNET

Evaluation: Army Veteran Tossed From Clinton Rally After Heckling Impeached Ex-President Bill Clinton

If you were an honest man, you'd have posted just two of those links, the ones were people heckled BILL Clinton while he was still president. They heckled him for having an affair with Monica in two of your links. Not for anything he did to the country, like Bush gets heckled for.

You've got one link about Hillary being heckled, and she's never been president. The others are about Bill being heckled while he was campaigning for Hillary.

Not such good proof eh Rakkasan? Two links out of six are valid to this discussion. Maybe you should actually read your links before you post them.

Just a suggestion.

drgoodtrips · #**207** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I can see this discussion is going nowhere. There are a few that believe it's perfectly okay to act like an asshole because it's their "right" and then there are the more sane people that realize that with free speech comes responsibility and common courtesy. Maybe when those childish few grow up, they'll understand...

I don't think anyone you're talking to really believes that. It's hard to seriously gauge any poster whose primary amusement from the site is attempting to offend people's sensibilities and so such a person is probably best ignored. The only person I see making a serious point is Sam, and perhaps Ajax, to a lesser extent.

drgoodtrips · #**208** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribbler1

No. The average protester might just possibly see his actions as calling attention to a problem and even affecting the problem. I don't think they expect Bush to fall to his knees begging forgiveness for his wrongs. But they likely think at least a few OTHER people, people who vote and can spread their word, will hear them and pressure the government to change Bush's policies. Their motivations are pretty clear. Their individual expectations really cannot be known and therefore not be used as an argument. This is why I used the word "possibly".
But Phelps and his people, OTOH, can NOT, as you said, have a reasonable expectation that a dead man or his mourners will change anything to suit your agenda. Harassing people at a funeral will not motivate them to take your side and to expect they will is an UNreasonable expectation of change and as such it's actually more reasonable to expect they will hate your guts. It is as reasonable for me to expect to hit the moon if I throw a rock at it.
That sounds more like a definition of insanity, and I don't think it applies to hecklers or protesters. They may be rude, obnoxious, disruptive or rowdy, but they are not insane in my view.And since the average soldier (i.e. the ones who do the actual dying) is NOT in any way responsible for recruitment of other soldiers, gay or otherwise, is is once again an unreasonable expectation to think what they do will actually accomplish what they want, and expecting them to kill gay soldiers on your say so is also unreasonable.
Again, protesters, by their very nature are trying to gain support against the norm. I believe if they didn't have SOME expectation of others rallying to their cause they would just slap a bumper sticker on their cars and be done with it. And in that you would be wrong. My disgust of them is based on how they protest and not what they protest (they have the same right as Bush protesters) and has absolutely nothing to do with the point I'm making. And that point was the comparison between heckling Bush and what Phelps does is invalid. One can be seen as rational and the other most definitely not.

And I don't have equal "disgust" for the hecklers because I see it as a minor issue overall. Did they throw rocks at Bush? Did they take a shot at him? Was the speech an occasion equally as personally sacred as a funeral for a loved one, particularly one who had fallen in the service of his country? No.I've heard at least two of Phelps' group taking questions on radio interviews. Believe me, there's plenty of "kookery" there. One of the radio hosts was even a former divinity student and was quoting contradictory Bible verses to one of Phelps' relatives and all she could do was keep repeating irrelevant nonsense and insisting the host was "one of them".
I see people who protest, and those who heckle, as not being in the same category.

To clarify a couple of things that I may not have communicated well:

(1) I don't believe either Phelps's inbred band of ickies or hecklers at a citizenship ceremony should have any rational expectation of their actions affecting positive results for their respective causes. Both are examples of irrational, emotional behavior and, as such, I'm not going to bother with an opinion of what is more rational or less loony, as it were. My overall point is that both groups operate on the same assumption - their desire to spread their message trumps any desire of their intended audience not to hear their message because of a personal/significant event. In both cases, the mentality is "anyone who doesn't want to hear my message is an asshole and wrong anyway, so either people will be glad to hear what I'm saying or else fuck 'em and their fuck their ceremonies because they're wrong and I'm right"

(2) I was saying (presuming) that you have disgust for Phelps and not for the protesters. I feel the same way. Phelps disgusts me whereas people who would interrupt a ceremony to scream at Bush I just think of as selfish annoyances on par with people who drive slowly in the left lane or bump into you with their carts in the grocery store because they're on their phone and not looking ahead as they walk. It's simply a disregard for common courtesy and the assumption that you can't be bothered to make any effort whatsoever not to bother other people.

solletica · #**209** (**permalink**) 07-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I can see this discussion is going nowhere. There are a few that believe it's perfectly okay to act like an asshole because it's their "right" and then there are the more sane people that realize that with free speech comes responsibility and common courtesy.

And that point has already been made and refuted in the case of this protest. It was completely inappropriate for Bush to present a false impression of an idyllic America based on "freedom of speech" in a ceremony about being an American,

when the reality (i. e. protesters being forced out for speaking their mind) is what the new citizens should've seen.

The argument for common courtesy can be made in proceedings where the protesters' concerns have absolutely no relevance to the ceremony, i. e. a private funeral or B-day party, but, as was stated above, that's not the case here, and trying to equate the two amounts to nothing more than presenting a false analogy

which posters like me can easily expose, making those who do it appear, well, childish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Maybe when those childish few grow up, they'll understand...

Indeed