READER COMMENTS ON
"And you thought he was YOUR President too?"
(24 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 8/20/2004 @ 7:35 am PT...
Did she have a "Royalty No More" or "The Pope Sucks" sticker on her blouse? I donít think so.
High school kids cannot wear Jesus Loves You or Satan Rules t-shirts at school either.
I have seen the Pope, Billy Graham, and GW Bush 41 in person. I dressed appropriately.
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 8/20/2004 @ 11:13 am PT...
appropriately? Jesus had long hair, sandals, a funky bunch of friends, wore lose fitting robes and something like a turban on his head. One has to wonder if they would let him in the republican klaverns dressed in such a manner. His dress may be understood as flamboyant. That penchent he had for sharing the wealth may also have gotten him scolded: "feed a man a fish...."
Last time i saw the Holy Father i was wearing sandals and a pair of shorts. This concentration on what people look like is truly bizarre. You should really be about judging people by the content of their character.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 8/20/2004 @ 11:26 am PT...
It's not like the woman was wearing a bikini thong. Dressed appropriately?
I have to say your argument is pretty flimsy Paul. It's okay to admit that sometimes your guys are wrong. There's no shame in it.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 8/20/2004 @ 11:37 am PT...
What does an assassin look like? There should probably be more security at the Kerry appearances. Not sure if he is worth spending a bullet on though. Much like Ted.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 8/20/2004 @ 12:18 pm PT...
For Johnhp the leftist - Jesus wore what his contemporaries wore.
It was not what she looked like but what was on her blouse. You should not advertise your competition. It is perfectly fine it they let her in or did not let her in. The Democrats would not let Al Jazeera hold up a sign at their convention but the Republicans will.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 8/20/2004 @ 12:30 pm PT...
"High school kids cannot wear Jesus Loves You or Satan Rules t-shirts at school either."
Are you suggesting now that Adult Americans at a Public Rally to see their sitting President should have no more freedom to do so than "High school kids"? Why do you hate American values and it's Constitution, Paul?
As to Ed's question about "what does an assassin look like?" I don't know. But I'm guessing he or she wouldn't advertise it with a sticker.
Of course, the woman would have had to go through a metal detector and had any bags, etc. searched before attending the rally. So unless she was planning on asphyxiating Bush by placing the sticker over his mouth, somehow, she hardly sounds like an assassin to me.
I wonder if there was something other than "assassination" the Bush/Cheney thugs might have been concerned about? Hmm...
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 8/20/2004 @ 12:33 pm PT...
Paul actually said:
"You should not advertise your competition. It is perfectly fine it they let her in or did not let her in."
I realize it's become hard to tell, particuarly with George W. Bush, but you'll be surprised to learn, Paul, that Dubya is not a Private Corporation. His "competition" being "advertised" for, is another American who is running for the highest public office in the land.
While you may hate Liberals and America, and perhaps so does Dubya, I'm sorry if you'll have to deal with the inconvenience that the President of the United States is President of all Americans whether they will be voting for him or not.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 8/20/2004 @ 5:48 pm PT...
Jesus wore what many people in the Middle East wear today (my actual point). It was precisely her clothing. That was also my point. She was judged by her appearance. Thank you for making it. So you're saying that you wouldnt mind if Kerry had let the democrats shout down the freepers that show up at his gatherings? Bull.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 8/21/2004 @ 4:59 am PT...
I love that "asphyxiating Bush by placing the sticker over his mouth" comment.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 8/21/2004 @ 8:33 am PT...
OK, I will admit the loyalty oath et al.. is all a little over the top. But I bet the woman slapped the sticker on just so she would get hassled and get her 15 minutes of fame. Well her time is up. I am sure there is a book in the near future. She could have left the sticker at home and we would be discussing something else.
This is much like wearing a Dallas Cowboys jersey to a 49ers game. It isn't done unless you wish to be cursed at pissed on and generally harassed. But I know the consequences and she did too. Brad sorry for the sports reference. I know this all totally foriegn to you.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 8/21/2004 @ 9:10 am PT...
a little over the top? Refusing people the right of public redress to the chief executive is a blow against the principles of the republic.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 8/21/2004 @ 10:36 am PT...
Since when did it become so popular to wear the other candidates shirt to political rally?? I don't ever remember this being an issue until now. The (thugs) could have played this better and suggested for her own safety she remove her sticker. I still stand by my assertation that she was only after her 15 minutes of fame. But they screwed this one up in my opinion and it has blown up in their faces. Sorry johnhp I am trying to agree with you and your pissed off because I don't agree strongly enough. Is there is no pleasing you?? Cmon Brad help me out here!!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 8/21/2004 @ 11:28 am PT...
Can't help you on that one, Ed. Your comment that Johnhp is replying to speaks of how the woman could have curtailed her First Amendment Rights to make the Bush Thugs happy in their rally.
The truth of the matter is, many folks disagree with this "President" and his policies, and have the hard won American Right to express that to their "President" and/or his supporters if they wish.
You also used a sports analogy, but missed the point of your own analogy. The 49ers Security would neither have forced the Cowboy Jersey wearing fan to remove it before entering, nor would they have denied them access.
Had they done so, they *might* have been able to argue that they are a Private Company (maybe) and can enforce whatever dress they want (maybe).
But in the case of the "President" of the United States, there is NO justification for disallowing such an occurence if a Free American wishes to show their support for the opposition. None.
Making excuses, and/or "apologizing" for such behavior won't get an assist from me!
On the other hand, however, I'm glad to see you understand the general idiocy of the campaign attempting to do so. Too bad, you don't seem to connect the issue to the *real* problem of the matter as Johnhp so aptly points.
It's never been an issue up to now, because it's unlikely any campaign has tried to do such a thing until now! They've also never required signing Loyalty Oaths or racial profiling of Journalists covering the candidates!
This is the work of your "President". That's why it's become an issue. Place the blame properly where it belongs.
It doesn't matter what the woman was after. This is America. Her 15 minutes of fame, if that's what she wanted, is hers "free" for the getting if she wishes to attempt to do so.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 8/21/2004 @ 12:38 pm PT...
you think it was a bad pr move on the administration's part. What is most troubling is that this statement just seemed to flow without any trouble whatsoever from your thoughts:
"The (thugs) could have played this better and suggested for her own safety she remove her sticker."
Her own safety? Are you saying that you neandercons are so unable to control yourselves that someone disagreeing with your candidate by simply wearing a button or a shirt, is in physical danger? That's completely horrible. Whats worse is that such a situation doesnt seem to bother you at all.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 8/22/2004 @ 4:32 pm PT...
These aren't just isolated incidents, ed. Bush has been coddled from his youth in Connectitcut, to his up by the bootstraps approach of getting daddy to legacy him into Yale with a C Average and using Daddy's name to get him into Harvard with a C average. Then almost failing his National Guard entrance exams, having daddy pull strings to leap frog hundreds of much more qualified applicants.
Having a daddy Congressman/ CIA Chief/ President helped him fuzz his ANG record. Where was he and what was he doing? No one knows and he was to drunk to remember. When confronted in 2000 with his drunk driving arrest and asked point blank whether he was arrested in 1968, this honest Christian man full of Truthfulness and Integrity said...no.
Somehow, after driving one company into the ground, [Arab name redacted] took it off his hands. Then he got another company, that he bankrupted and sold off to [Arab Name redacted]. Ruining two companies would make any investor lose confidence, much less give someone another opportunity to do it again. Yet, shazam, Bush got to fuck up another comany. And this time, a little insider trading foible blew away in the wind.
Having a name like George Walker Jones or George Walker Kelinfeld would not have got him the seat as governor of Texas, but rattle the name Bush around and money pours at your feet.
Having mixed success as the Governor (he met every two years with his legislature) by killing the most people in gas chambers, being home to the most polluted city in the Nation and hiding a bunch of failed kids in the system so know one knows his biggest achievement was a fraud.
Failing to be the uniter, Bush runs to his base. Fuck the homos, blacks, non-Texan/ Cuban Hispanics, environmentalists, liberals, moderates, moderate Republicans. What matters is the 4 million extra evangelical Christians he can get dividing rather than uniting.
This man would crumble in a House of Commons. 50 years as a half ass drunk, who's been coddled every step of the way is in no position to debate his thought processes. Living in a black and white world insulates him from introspection. God is right, he is right. Case closed. All is God's will so no wrong can be done. Bomb a country based on lies and mistaken intelligence? hey...God's will.
Breaking through his fragile reasoning would reveal the empty suit I believe he is. Keep away from Russert, Keep away from the Press, Keep away from any unpleantness a heckler might bring, hold a convention in New York (where the city wants him on a spit) and get the hell out of dodge in less than six hours.
Bush doen't hate freedom, he's just afraid of looking really, REALLY bad.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 8/24/2004 @ 2:58 pm PT...
Bush has been coddled and Kerry hasn't. Really.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 8/24/2004 @ 9:05 pm PT...
Kerry was the son of a Mid level diplomat, not the son of a CIA head/VP/President.
Kerry Chose to go to Vietnam and Re-enlist. Kerry went into public service right after he got back. He was living in a mid size apartment until he married Teresa Heinz.
Conservatives say "Let's look at what Kerry's done for the last 30 years", but don't mention one bit where Bush was...Bush doesn't even know where Bush was.
Do you want to talk about Bush's 30 year haze? How is being a disgusting drunk and absolutely shitty businessman comparable to 30 years in public service?
How is lying about running his car off the road in a drunken stupor and bring arrested for it better than lying about being in Cambodia?
Please. Tell me, ed, about Bush's 30 year drunken greatness.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 7:46 am PT...
Bradley - I do not hate America or hate liberals. I just think that liberal ideas are bad for America.
You bring up the "hate" word a lot on your blog.
Bush "is" the president of all of the people but it is you liberals who parrot the phrase "Not my president!"
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 8:24 am PT...
Now they know how we felt about Clinton.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 8:41 am PT...
" I do not hate America or hate liberals"
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 11:36 am PT...
the first time i saw "not my president" it was a reference to Clinton. Here's the difference between Clinton and Bush. The whole episode with regard to clinton was completely out of proportion to his culpability. The most investigated; least prosecuted Administration in recent history. On the other hand every charge on this blog against this Administration is true and accurate and you havent been able to defend them with regard to facts. Why is that?
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 8/26/2004 @ 6:27 am PT...
> The whole episode with regard to Clinton was completely out of proportion to his culpability.
Clinton lied in a federal court trying to fix a civil suit filed against him due to sexual harassment. It was not about sex, like liberals like to parrot.
As far as the sex is concerned, Clinton tried to get out of the civil suit until after he left office, because he, as commander in chief during war, was immune. That was, of course, a weak argument. My brother-in-law, who was in the army, said that adultery in times of war can get one the death penalty. Clinton dropped a few bombs, but we were not officially at war. He should have been removed from office but the senators were wussies in the matter.
The corporate corruption was going on during the Clinton years and finally came crashing down at end of 2000/2001 with Enron and WorldCom and Global Crossing, yet you guys blamed Bush.
Bush did not lie about WMDs. Bush is not working with the Swift Boat Vets. Bush should not be held responsible for the abuse in Iraq, which you guys will use to try to impeach Bush if he wins. Bush did not know about 911. Bush is not a Nazi. Those are the facts.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 8/26/2004 @ 8:30 am PT...
i didnt say it was about sex. i said the investigations were out of proportion to what Clinton actuially did. In the first place the investigations were much broader than the Lewinski issue. We are talking about investigations in excess of 60 million dollars that demonstrated nothing other than a lie about a non-material aspect of the case. Non-material because it was a different issue than what Jones alleged. For Jones to have actually proven her case she would have to demonstrate a pattern; the Lewinski episode was the opposite of what Jones alleged. Under the law not all lies are perjurious. For a lie under oath to be so it must relate to a material issue of the case.
i dont know anyone who blamed Bush for corporate corruption; i think it odd that he was close to some of the largest offenders. i also think it strange that Harken oil was guilty of similar practises while Bush was on the board.
Bush specifically lied about WMD. He presented information that was unclear and hedged as absolute and certain. Bush may very well be working with the swiftees; this needs to be investigated on the prima facie evidence alone. Where precisely DOES the buck stop with Bush? Bush may not have known about 911, i dont know anyone who claims he does, but he certainly went into that classroom knowing beforehand that more than one plane had been hijacked, that a plane had hit the WTC and that the CIA director thought that the WTC hit was an al Qaeda attack. When he had the chance to be adecisive and authoritative leader, he opted for a photo-op.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 8/26/2004 @ 12:02 pm PT...
I'm back on the road shortly, and thus unable to answer to Paul's nonsense as reliably as usual. So thank god for JohnHP!
I'll hit only one piece of Paul's nonsense since John has ably handled the rest. You said:
"My brother-in-law, who was in the army, said that adultery in times of war can get one the death penalty"
Really? Can you give a single example of it, Paul? Or is that just more words that you guys like to toss out that has nothing to do with the truth, but you hope nobody will bother to check?
We await your non-response and/or evasive change of subject shortly.