Bush Banning Criticism?

Well, in the words of Roger Waters, "Welcome To The Machine"...
Apparently the first ammendment is mroe rapidly giving way to 'national security" than we thought...

www.memphisflyer.com...
Did a federal agent ban anti-Bush signs in downtown storefronts?
CHRIS DAVIS | 3/12/2005
“The man who called was very polite and nice,” says John Gasquet, owner of Empire coffee at 2 N. Main in Downtown Memphis. “He said he was special agent Something-or-other. He said that due to the fact that in some states the President had been to, there were issues of security regarding area businesses, he was calling businesses to tell them not to put up any negative signs in their windows that were negative toward President Bush. He said there were designated areas of protest and this would cut down on the possibility of problems.”...
Customers who saw Gasquet’s sign started telling him that other businesses in the area had been contacted and given similar instructions. No other local incidents have been confirmed at this time. After information concerning the call broke on the Internet on Saturday morning Empire received a call from another business owner in Alabama who had been contacted by "the feds."

Just so Uncle Sam knows, I'll say it here, and maybe through the miracle of keywords, someone upstairs will read my following statement...
"I will put any damned sign I like."

wait.. free speech? isn't that allowed?

...he was calling businesses to tell them not to put up any negative signs in their windows that were negative toward President Bush. He said there were designated areas of protest and this would cut down on the possibility of problems.




Now that's good basic psychology! ...Tell anyone they can't do something and chances are, they'll turn around and do that very thing just to prove they can.

So this administration is not just fascist, it's incompetent too. Thank god.


.

Well that did for me I am getting a bumper sticker bashing bush and then I am going to see how many times I will be targeted by the police, is going to be my new research project.

We dont' know that the caller really was an "Agent"...

Back in my younger days,
when I was in high school, in fact,
a campaigning Mr. Clinton came to my town to hold a pep rally.
My school's band was invited to play bunches of patriotic, Sousa-esque music for the esteemed visit, and being a member of said band myself,
I got a pretty awesome seat to the whole shebang.

I also remember being drilled over & over by the school principal --
per the government officials, no one was allowed to display any anti-Clinton buttons/shirts/hats/etc. We could wear all the pro-Clinton memorabilia we wanted, but we were all under strict orders to wear nothing anti-Clinton.

You shoulda seen people getting hauled out of there when they pulled out hidden signs and the like.
No one in the band got themselves in trouble, but we sure got ringside seats to the people in the crowd who did!!!

Originally posted by Banshee

I also remember being drilled over & over by the school principal --
per the government officials, no one was allowed to display any anti-Clinton buttons/shirts/hats/etc. We could wear all the pro-Clinton memorabilia we wanted, but we were all under strict orders to wear nothing anti-Clinton.

You shoulda seen people getting hauled out of there when they pulled out hidden signs and the like.

Meaning what? Clinton did it first so it's acceptable?

IMO - Shifting blame and redirecting focus is not very productive.

Sounds to me like what happened in your school was personal - a principal trying to uphold his image.

What's happening now is happening at a federal level, not the personal - and venturing into the justice system. ...Someone above said that the caller may not have been an agent - and that's true - we don't know. So all we can do is test the system to find out how deep this goes.

marg

Great research project, if you're up to it. ...Keep a log and post it here - please. I'd like to see what happens.


.

On the back window of my truck, next to my Airborne sticker and flag I proudly display a sticker that reads:

A TRUE PATRIOT ACT: VOTE BUSH OUT

As far as that news report is concerned, we don't know if it was an agent or not. It sounds like something Bush's drones would do. Probably some angry right wing kook that saw some pinko liberals hanging out at the guy's shop.

Originally posted by soficrow

Meaning what? Clinton did it first so it's acceptable?

IMO - Shifting blame and redirecting focus is not very productive.

Nope.

I'm just providing personal experience to indicate the further widening between parties on ATS,
which is patently and amazingly ridiculous.

This is nothing new. It's called PR, and it's been done by both "sides" in many different ways.

It sounds to me like you've gone blind in your hatred to the degree that you cannot see any other side.
Sad, really. You're certainly smarter than that.



By the way, it wasn't the school principal dragging people out of the rally. That would have been Clinton's security people.

Originally posted by Banshee

Originally posted by soficrow

Meaning what? Clinton did it first so it's acceptable?

IMO - Shifting blame and redirecting focus is not very productive.

It sounds to me like you've gone blind in your hatred to the degree that you cannot see any other side.
Sad, really. You're certainly smarter than that.

I don't see it as a "side" thing. ...Whomever might have done such things is wrong IMO - and working against the Constitution. But we have to deal with the here and now - and protect our rights before we lose them.

...You might see this is a just a harmless continuation of well-established trends, I'm not sure. But I see it as a trend that's slipping out of control, fast, and threatening democracy. ...I'm not a Democrat and not interested in "taking sides" - just in fixing what I see as going wrong (and clearly identifying the problems is part of the process).

By the way, it wasn't the school principal dragging people out of the rally. That would have been Clinton's security people.

I hope you or your parents complained. I certainly would have - and gone after newspaper coverage too. Free speech and dissent are rights protected by our Constitution. NOBODY has a right to take them away - not your principal OR the president. ...I should have said that earlier.


.

Originally posted by marg6043
Well that did for me

I am getting a bumper sticker bashing bush and then I am going to see how many times I will be targeted by the police, is going to be my new research project.

I've had my 'No More Bu#' sticker on my car for some time now, along with my 'Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church' and 'Don't steal... the government hates competition' and I haven't had any problems with cops except for when im speeding. And I live in ultra-conservative Chattanooga, TN

Mr Bush doesnt want his feelings hurt, can we blame him?

He's used to his WH people telling him how wonderful and loved he is. It must be something of a shock for him to travel across this country and overseas and see "Down with Bush" signs. (he probably think lots of people dislike Bush beer)

"Cheney, whatz wrong wit these people?"
"Oh, Mr President, they're boycotting Bush beer all over the world"

Oh Dg. you are right we can not hurt Mr. Bush feeling after all he is in a glass bubble that is how the poppet masters wants him to stay

So when somebody like him is in that type of delicate condition any thing rude to him would cause a brake down.

Originally posted by Banshee

It sounds to me like you've gone blind in your hatred to the degree that you cannot see any other side.
Sad, really. You're certainly smarter than that.

the words soficrow and hatred just don't go together. i notice the word 'hatred' being substituted in place of 'critical' around here A LOT lately.
sad, really. you're certainly a lot smarter than that.

It's strange, but Clinton came to Nashville one weekend I was there and there was none of that censorship. Neither was there any of that when he visited Charlotte, NC a couple years later. I have never heard of any president prior to Bush jr. banning opposing ideas or sentiments. Those who came before were strong enuff in their positions/thinking that that kind of stuff didn't bother them. I guess when you grow up pampered like Dubya, no one's big enough to stand up and tell him how it really is. One word comes to mind: PATHETIC.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

If at any time you are dissuaded from calling the Bush administration for what it is - the most criminal and corrupt government in US history - you will know the rot has set in at ATS.

But I do not think that day will come, as ATS is meant to be about the truth.

Judging from this thread and ATS in general, if Bush did ban criticism, he certainly hasn't done a good job at it.

Originally posted by marg6043
Well that did for me

I am getting a bumper sticker bashing bush and then I am going to see how many times I will be targeted by the police, is going to be my new research project.

I don't get targeted with my "vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry" bumper sticker along side of my "Vietnam Veteran" license plate.

Marg, a good idea for your next research project is why Amreica's favorite liberal newspaper, the New York Times, pulled a John Kerry flip flop about Iraq's WMDs...

"In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites."

www.freerepublic.com...

But you know.... liberals keep a low profile when caught in a lie by their own liberal newspaper of choice. I've been thinking about this and I'm sure I can help you over this crisis...repeat after me...."Maybe Bush was right...Maybe Bush was right"

Chief

God, I love it

Originally posted by w555hc

Marg, a good idea for your next research project is why Amreica's favorite liberal newspaper, the New York Times, pulled a John Kerry flip flop about Iraq's WMDs...

"In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites."

www.freerepublic.com...

God, I love it

Pure disinformation. Not what the NYTimes said.

"The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states." " ...Th weapons program - and facilities - were inactive, but valuable and dangerous if reactivated.

You need to go to the original NYTimes article - not rely on the trash you're reading.


www.nytimes.com


And check this out too:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The New York Times is owned by Jewish Interests, and while on the subject of the New york Times specifically, here's a quote from the Times...

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by edsinger
Well well well, and the New York Times even....

www.washingtonpost.com...
N.Y. Times Cites Defects in Its Reports on Iraq
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 26, 2004; Page C01
The New York Times acknowledged today that its coverage of whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction "was not as rigorous as it should have been" and that "we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge."

Even the NY Times has said...

Covering the war in Iraq was not The New York Times at its best.

The New york Times has said Bush was 'misleading' them...

www.commondreams.org...
The New York Times offered a sharp editorial Tuesday critiquing the indisputable role of the White House in distorting the intelligence on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and in stampeding Congressional and public opinion by spinning worst-case scenarios -- "inflating them drastically" -- to justify an immediate invasion last March to repel an alleged imminent threat to the United States.

www.commondreams.org...
No story has appeared in The New York Times under Judith Miller's byline since June 7, but she still works at the paper, according to Catherine Mathis, vice president for corporate communications. But, based on other comments by Mathis, it is obvious that the wagons are still circling the embattled star reporter.
From postwar Iraq, Miller, the Times' expert on chemical and biological weapons, wrote a series of exaggerated stories that led readers to believe that unconventional weapons programs were being uncovered or weapons of mass destruction were about to be found -- and that this supported the Bush administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

Reality Versus Myth. layed out in side by side comparisons...
www.americanprogress.org...

www.nonviolence.org...
According to Slate magazine, the New York Times is about to issue an “editor’s Note” apologizing for its coverage leading up to the Iraq War. It will focus on star reporter Judith Miller’s enthusiastic coverage of every unsubstantiated story about Iraq weapons of mass destruction:

Miller’s work on WMD in the Times deserves special scrutiny because so many of her sensational stories never panned out—from a December 2001 piece about now-discredited Iraqi defector Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, who claimed inside knowledge about a score of Iraq WMD programs and storage facilities, to a December 2002 scoop about a possible Russia-Iraq smallpox collaboration, to a January 2003 eve-of-war piece reiterating the defectors’ stories of Iraqi WMD.

NY Times... lol Get Real Ed, they lead the charge, got busted, then passed the buck.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by twitchy]