Not just in America mind...they just did the same in the UK: When Bush went there in mid November, the British authorities went to an extreme extent to make sure that Bush was unaware of any protest. It must have been successful too because Laura Bush, when asked about the protests, replied something to the effect "I don't see any protesters". As it turned out, London was paralyzed that day by a huge anti-Bush (NOT anti-America btw) rally and march, the largest midweek protest in British history estimated between 125,000 (police) and 300,000 (organizers). And he (Bush) doesn't read the papers either..so he's is still probably unaware of overwhelming world opinion against his admin's doctrine.
Why weren't you guys posting when the DNC set these up around the convention?
Oh wait oh wait this is an anti-Bush thread. Time to stop thinking!
well, it bugs me that the dems are blocking in similar ways. BUT, last i checked, the dnc is not a government agency. not like the, uh, treasury department. the government has no right to inhibit my, or any other tax payer's freedom of speech. cutting off peaceable protesters defeats the whole purpose of free speech.
well, it bugs me that the dems are blocking in similar ways. BUT, last i checked, the dnc is not a government agency. not like the, uh, treasury department. the government has no right to inhibit my, or any other tax payer's freedom of speech. cutting off peaceable protesters defeats the whole purpose of free speech.
You do have a point there. People often don't see the distinction between a government agency and a privately run one.
Nick, don't be an asshole. Not that we could expect more.
It's not bullshit, and it's my understanding it was normal procedure, at least in New Jersey and probably in any comparable area where abortion clinics are the best equipped for it.
"abortion clinics are the best equipped"
You're clueless. Keep making it up when you feel like it.
Just doing a quick google search, I can't find anyone complaining about being segregated for being an anti-clinton protestor. In fact, the big thing that keeps coming up is that incident that happened in Philly where some anti-clinton protesters got punched by union members, and all indications in that case point to there being no segregation of the kind discussed here with Bush.
i think it's wrong, but does anyone here actually believe it started with the GWB administration? (for presidents)
It would be interesting to find out if and when there was a policy change. It doesn't seem like this has happened with previous presidents, but I don't know for sure.
Well this certainly doesn't surprise me. Mr. Bush has always been a little bold in the way he treats our personal rights.
This is just one more log on the fire.
This is why I say Bush is dangerous.
Are the democrats "dangerous" when the do the exact same thing. Why not mention them. Oh wait this is a Bush bashing thread. Turn your brain off and bash away.
You're clueless. Keep making it up when you feel like it.
Well, then why are people with miscarriages told to go there? I don't know, but that was my understanding as to why she had to go there and I have been told it is not unusual.
So instead of being an asshole, if there is a reason I don't know than fill me in.
Just doing a quick google search, I can't find anyone complaining about being segregated for being an anti-clinton protestor. In fact, the big thing that keeps coming up is that incident that happened in Philly where some anti-clinton protesters got punched by union members, and all indications in that case point to there being no segregation of the kind discussed here with Bush.
Super scary smart all knowing media god giant can't find and info
Well, then why are people with miscarriages told to go there? I don't know, but that was my understanding as to why she had to go there and I have been told it is not unusual.
So instead of being an asshole, if there is a reason I don't know than fill me in.
I'll fill you in. You're a moron and don't know what you are talking about.
Are the democrats "dangerous" when the do the exact same thing. Why not mention them. Oh wait this is a Bush bashing thread. Turn your brain off and bash away.
Well at least you could provide a documented example of where Clinton had his secret service do the same thing before you can demand the outrage.
Are the democrats "dangerous" when the do the exact same thing. Why not mention them. Oh wait this is a Bush bashing thread. Turn your brain off and bash away.
Since the democratic party convention ( if that's what you were referring to ) is not the govenment there's a distinction. Or haven't you been following?
Just doing a quick google search, I can't find anyone complaining about being segregated for being an anti-clinton protestor. In fact, the big thing that keeps coming up is that incident that happened in Philly where some anti-clinton protesters got punched by union members, and all indications in that case point to there being no segregation of the kind discussed here with Bush.
Well you obviously didn't go the the Democratic Convention in Chicago. All the protesters were roped off in an area almost a half mile away from the convention center on the other side from where delegates and media came into the United Center.
Is it not the case that these are often, if not always, facilities where abortions are also performed, considering how D&C is a common abortion procedure? Was this woman's case really so unique?
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Why weren't you guys posting when the DNC set these up around the convention?
Oh wait oh wait this is an anti-Bush thread. Time to stop thinking!
well, it bugs me that the dems are blocking in similar ways. BUT, last i checked, the dnc is not a government agency. not like the, uh, treasury department. the government has no right to inhibit my, or any other tax payer's freedom of speech. cutting off peaceable protesters defeats the whole purpose of free speech.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
well, it bugs me that the dems are blocking in similar ways. BUT, last i checked, the dnc is not a government agency. not like the, uh, treasury department. the government has no right to inhibit my, or any other tax payer's freedom of speech. cutting off peaceable protesters defeats the whole purpose of free speech.
You do have a point there. People often don't see the distinction between a government agency and a privately run one.
free speech only if you agree with GWB...
dissident speech != potential terrorist
how orwellian.
Originally posted by giant
Nick, don't be an asshole. Not that we could expect more.
It's not bullshit, and it's my understanding it was normal procedure, at least in New Jersey and probably in any comparable area where abortion clinics are the best equipped for it.
"abortion clinics are the best equipped"
Originally posted by alcimedes
i think it's wrong, but does anyone here actually believe it started with the GWB administration? (for presidents)
It would be interesting to find out if and when there was a policy change. It doesn't seem like this has happened with previous presidents, but I don't know for sure.
Originally posted by jimmac
Well this certainly doesn't surprise me. Mr. Bush has always been a little bold in the way he treats our personal rights.
This is just one more log on the fire.
This is why I say Bush is dangerous.
Are the democrats "dangerous" when the do the exact same thing. Why not mention them. Oh wait this is a Bush bashing thread. Turn your brain off and bash away.
Originally posted by Scott
"abortion clinics are the best equipped"
You're clueless. Keep making it up when you feel like it.
Well, then why are people with miscarriages told to go there? I don't know, but that was my understanding as to why she had to go there and I have been told it is not unusual.
So instead of being an asshole, if there is a reason I don't know than fill me in.
Originally posted by giant
Just doing a quick google search, I can't find anyone complaining about being segregated for being an anti-clinton protestor. In fact, the big thing that keeps coming up is that incident that happened in Philly where some anti-clinton protesters got punched by union members, and all indications in that case point to there being no segregation of the kind discussed here with Bush.
Super scary smart all knowing media god giant can't find and info
Originally posted by giant
Well, then why are people with miscarriages told to go there? I don't know, but that was my understanding as to why she had to go there and I have been told it is not unusual.
So instead of being an asshole, if there is a reason I don't know than fill me in.
I'll fill you in. You're a moron and don't know what you are talking about.
Originally posted by Scott
I'll fill you in. You're a moron and don't know what you are talking about.
Whatever, fatass. Let's just hope you don't sufficate your little asian wife in bed tonight.
Originally posted by Scott
Are the democrats "dangerous" when the do the exact same thing. Why not mention them. Oh wait this is a Bush bashing thread. Turn your brain off and bash away.
Well at least you could provide a documented example of where Clinton had his secret service do the same thing before you can demand the outrage.
Originally posted by Scott
Are the democrats "dangerous" when the do the exact same thing. Why not mention them. Oh wait this is a Bush bashing thread. Turn your brain off and bash away.
Since the democratic party convention ( if that's what you were referring to ) is not the govenment there's a distinction. Or haven't you been following?
Originally posted by Scott
I'll fill you in. You're a moron and don't know what you are talking about.
SCOTT IN TRUE FORM!
Originally posted by giant
Just doing a quick google search, I can't find anyone complaining about being segregated for being an anti-clinton protestor. In fact, the big thing that keeps coming up is that incident that happened in Philly where some anti-clinton protesters got punched by union members, and all indications in that case point to there being no segregation of the kind discussed here with Bush.
Well you obviously didn't go the the Democratic Convention in Chicago. All the protesters were roped off in an area almost a half mile away from the convention center on the other side from where delegates and media came into the United Center.
It was wrong then and it is wrong now.
http://www.facs.org/public_info/operation/dncmiss.pdf
according to this site they are often performed in "outpatient clinics:"
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/t.../og059101.html
Is it not the case that these are often, if not always, facilities where abortions are also performed, considering how D&C is a common abortion procedure? Was this woman's case really so unique?