It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man charged with Assault for criticizing Cheney

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Sorry, I overreacted myself esdad71. Why does that sound familar to me? Anyway, I just got upset. I'm sorry to you and everyone else on this board and the fourm.




posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   
You spoke your mind, and that is a good thing. Debate stimulates thought and can help one to accomplish answers to questions that they may hold.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
So now we must have some guidelines on behavior around our elected officials I am amazed by the way the regime in power seems to distance themselves from the people that elected them and have the right to speak the truth and their feelings in their faces.

Occurs if they can get that close to them.

Next time Cheney is in town, Don't speak, don't breath and don't and make yourself transparent.


Or you would be seems and having a disturbing behavior


Are we a dictatorship yet? OH
I forgot we are a democracy.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
With folks with ideology such as yours Marge, yes, they should be frightened.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Wish I was there when this happened
Only way to know the full story really.

By one token he could have said some other stuff to Cheney including profanity and Howard is just making himself look like a saint...

But by the other token he could be telling the absolute truth.

Personally I think the true story is somewhere in the middle. Of course that is only opinion based because I wasn't there and I have no idea what happened. One guy's account can never be used for anything really.

Shame there wasn't any camera's.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
With folks with ideology such as yours Marge, yes, they should be frightened.


My ideology? can you please tell me because I can no seem to undertand that ideology you speaking about.

You know the one that seems so frightening.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Esdad, I was disturbed at reading your comments about Mr. Howards and Cheney/SS's treatment of him. You expressed suspicion of an ordinary citizen who did nothing more than tell an elected official that he views that official's policies in Iraq to be reprehensible, rather than shake Cheney's hand and say nothing offensive like all the other good little citizens in the mall that day. You asserted that Mr. Howards must have done something sinister though there is no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. It seems, based on what you wrote, that you think Mr. Howards must have done something wrong because the SS man arrested him. Your knee jerk deference to the man asserting authority is frightening. Mr. Howards is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's a basic principle here in the good ol' U.S.A., at least on paper. Though Mr. Howards is presumed innocent, those SS bastards kept Mr. Howards' hands cuffed behind his back for three hours. Try sitting with your hands cuffed behind your back for three hours! Mr. Howards' fundamental rights were violated by Dick Cheney and his entourage. Cheney and those like him need to be reminded that the public doesn't exist for their convenience and that he is in office because of the public (albeit, a duped public) who have every right and obligation to question and criticize his every move.

[edit on 10/14/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Marg,


You spook people because you're liberal.

You tree-hugging hippie





posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Dubiousone,

Thank you for your input.

Well said.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

You tree-hugging hippie




I tell you I miss the old good days of the seventies, you know the ones when it was OK to criticized your government and have freedom of speech.

I guess many people here were too young to remember that we have freedom onces.


And presidents were forced to resign when they infringed in the citizens rights, now they punish us for even speak directly to them.

Yes dg, the old good days.


[edit on 14-10-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
DrFungi: Why do you say the truth must be somewhere in the middle? Cheney and company, the SS agent, and his agency had the opportunity to tell their side of the incident. Instead, they chose to keep a zipped lip and deprive the public of hearing their version of the event, thereby maintaining their ability to concoct any lie that may suit the moment's needs down the road. Their silence lends unchallenged credibility to Mr. Howards' statements.

Aren't you gettting fed up with all the BS governmental secrecy and the attitude by those in government (i.e. the people who are paid with your tax dollars to protect and serve you) that they are a country separate and apart from the non-government-employed citizens of the USA and that we exist to serve them?

[edit on 10/14/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
DrFungi: Why do you say the truth must be somewhere in the middle? Cheny and company, the SS agent, and his agency had their opportunity to tell their side of the incident. Instead, they chose keep a zipped lip and deprive the public of hearing their version of the event, thereby maintaining their ability to concoct any lie that may suit the moment's needs down the road. Their silence lends unchallenged credibility to Mr. Howards' statements.

Aren't you gettting fed up with all the BS governmental secrecy and the attitude by those in government (i.e. the people who are paid with your tax dollars to protect and serve you) that they are a country separate and apart from the non-government-employed citizens of the USA. and that bwe exist to serve them?


I'm saying that you can't believe the testimonies of either side because they could more than easily change their version of the events to suit them.

By going in the middle I'm not taking either side. But I am saying that Howard might have made himself out to be a bit better than he actually was.

And look a little to the left. I am not American and therefore I don't pay a cent to protect them. And if I did - I'd want this guy to be taken in for questioning. Not charged by any means, that's just over the top IF what he's saying is true.

I wouldn't expect anyone official to be giving statements on something as small as this when there are far more important things going on in the world.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:31 PM
link   
DrFungi, you said " I'd want this guy to be taken in for questioning." For telling Cheney that he thinks Cheney's policies in Iraq are reprehensible?

Taking somone in "for questioning" for Mr. Howards' statement to Cheney would only serve to teach Mr. Howards and other uppity citizens that they'd better keep their insolent mouths shut, i.e. a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech and every U.S. citizen's duty to be watchful of what their government is doing.

I shudder to think where you must live to have an attitude such as that. I thought the KGB was a thing of the past. What do they call it under Putin?

Your statement that you wouldn't expect anyone official to give a statement on something "as small as this" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how important this incident is. This is not small. It is of huge significance. Elected officials aren't royalty who possess an unfettered right to trample upon the constitutional rights of a citizen whenever that citizen is deemed an annoyance. When our elected and appointed officials act that way, it's time to demote them from their high place in government.

[edit on 10/14/2006 by dubiousone]

[edit on 10/14/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
He was handcuffed, detained, and released, all within 3 hours, long enough to not deem him a threat. What is wrong with that?

They did what they are trained to do, and nothing else. Did you not read the article I posted? The one that states a much different state of mind and attitude from Mr. Howard?

This is media grabbing by a left wing conservationsit, nothing more. Look at the groups he is involved in. He does not want change, he wants attention.

besides, I like hippies, and Marge, you always give me a great point of view



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
DrFungi, you said " I'd want this guy to be taken in for questioning." For telling Cheney that he thinks Cheney's policies in Iraq are reprehensible?

Taking somone in "for questioning" for Mr. Howards' statement to Cheney would only serve to teach Mr. Howards and other uppity citizens that they'd better keep their insolent mouths shut, i.e. a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech and every U.S. citizen's duty to be watchful of what their government is doing.


I have said it before. From where I am sitting it looks like he did a bit more than calmly tell Cheney he disagreed with his Iraq policy. If you can PROVE otherwise, please, go ahead.

Speech is only 10% words. The rest is body language and tone.

If the secret service considered him a thread, he should be questioned. Better safe than sorry. God forbid inconveniencing someone for 3 hours to protect the life of a valuable political figure.


Originally posted by dubiousone
I shudder to think where you must live to have an attitude such as that. I thought the KGB was a thing of the past. What do they call it under Putin?


Ok. I know this is hard by hold my hand and follow me.

Take your eyes. Move them to the left where my avatar is. Look a liiiiitle below. Ok now read that. It says Sydney, Australia. Was that hard. Would you like a hug?



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:51 PM
link   


Your statement that you wouldn't expect anyone official to give a statement on something "as small as this" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how important this incident is. This is not small. It is of huge significance. Elected officials aren't royalty who possess an unfettered right to trample upon the constitutional rights of a citizen whenever that citizen is deemed an annoyance. When our elected and appointed officials act that way, it's time to demote them from their high place in government.


Huge significance? Why isn't all over the New York times? Because Howard's story CANNOT be verified and as far as anybody here knows - he's a liar. I am not saying that he is a liar... but no one could prove otherwise.

You need evidence to back up a story and Howard doesn't have it. He can prove he was detained and charged but he certainly can't prove what he said to Dick Cheney was said calmly or even prove that they were his exact words.

Not even the Anti-Bush media is buying into this.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:57 PM
link   
What's wrong with that? Is that a serious question or are you just playing mind games?

I read the article you posted. It says only that an SS "spokesman" (i.e. propaganda/PR guy) said:



"His behavior and demeanor wasn't quite right,"
"The agents tried to question him, and he was argumentative and combative."

On Monday, another spokesman for the Secret Service refused to say what "wasn't quite right" about Howards' demeanor and whether federal charges were brought against Howards.

"No further comment," said the spokesman, Jonathan Cherry.


"Wasn't quite right" and "argumentative" and "combative" convey no information at all. These descriptions are nothing but diversions to deflect the weak minded from questioning the official version any further.

"wasn't quite right" = didn't behave like a good little drone on psychotropic medications

"argumentative" and "combative" = didn't change his point of view to one of agreement with ours.

You should be offended that your goverrnment expects you to accept that blather as an explanation of what happened. It's an insult to your intelligence. Hopefully, some day you'll wake up and see it for what it is.

Mr. Howards did nothing that justifies depirving a U.S. citizen of his liberty for one minute, let alone three hours. Mr. Howards should be compensated. The compensation should come out of Cheney's, the SS agent's, and his superiors' pockets. That way, they'll learn a lesson. Well, at least the agent will. Cheney wouldn't notice the hit at all. But, of course, it'll come out of your pocket in the form of tax dollars and business will continue as usual.

[edit on 10/14/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   


"argumentative" and "combative" = didn't change his point of view to one of agreement with ours.


Combative
SYLLABICATION: com·bat·ive
ADJECTIVE: Eager or disposed to fight; belligerent.
OTHER FORMS: com·bative·ly —ADVERB
com·bative·ness —

Sounds a bit harsher than not willing to change his point of view to me.



Mr. Howards did nothing that justifies depirving a U.S. citizen of his liberty for one minute, let alone three hours.


According to trained Secret Service professionals - he did.



Mr. Howards should be compensated. The compensation should come out of Cheney's, the SS agent's, and his superiors' pockets. That way, they'll learn a lesson. Well, at least the agent will. Cheney wouldn't notice the hit at all. But, of course, it'll come out of your pocket in the form of tax dollars and business will continue as usual.


I don't think the Secret Service agent would notice the hit either... 3 hours of time isn't exactly worth much.

As for calling them SS, that's downright disrespectful. If you cannot take the extra 2 and a half seconds to type the rest of the words out you are downright lazy. Especially when the abbreviation compares these men who put their life on the line every day to NAZI's.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   
DrFungi:

No evidence? Apparently, you think that only the "official" version qualifies as evidence.

Mr. Howards' word is evidence.

Mr. Howards can prove what he said to Dick Cheney by telling us what he said to Dick Cheney. Mr. Howards has done that. What he said has been published. Mr. Howards doesn't need any more evidence than that, particularly in view of Cheney's failure to refute one word of Mr. Howards' statement.

You are like so many others who have been brainwashed into believing that whatever an offficial does and says is correct and true, and you don't even know that those filters have been installed in your brain!

I suggest you re-read, again, and again, and again, . . . and again, your own posts on this thread and maybe, if you're lucky, you'll gain a glimmer of what is going on inside your own head.

I am far more inclined to believe Mr. Howard than Cheney or the SS on this incident. Howards is the only one who has displayed enough integrity to state openly what happened.

I wonder whether the SS has confiscated all the video footage from the mall surveillance cameras that were operating that day.

[edit on 10/15/2006 by dubiousone]



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Are we a dictatorship yet? OH
I forgot we are a democracy.

If you were in a factual, reality-based, true dictatorship, be assured that you would not have the luxury and/or freedom, that is bestowed to you because you are living in a democracy, to be able to post up that which you have.


Think twice next time before you pass off sarcasm concerning US democracy.
Apparently, you really do not know how good you do have it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join