# Man cuffed, jailed for giving his opinion to Dick Cheney



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

https://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5040783,00.html

'The suit filed Tuesday alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest also violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful arrest...'


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

The secret service is a very professional organization. When this fleshes out I'm sure more than this gentleman's side of the story will come out. He probably said something more than what is quoted. 

Personally I think they should take this hippy to Gitmo but that's just me.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Personally I think they should take this hippy to Gitmo but that's just me.


I beg your pardon? Hippy? The man clearly does not look like a hippy - he's dressed like an AAAC member. Do you think that everyone who disagrees with you should be shipped off to a prison camp?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I'd be curious to know how close he even was...one would think the SS would keep a reasonable distance between the VP and the rest of the world.

Although, if the man knows enough about Cheney to give him a reasoned opinion, he should also know that Cheney doesn't really give a whip about what he or anyone else thinks. I'm talking about generals and other foreign policy experts here 

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JLPWCXIII said:


> I beg your pardon? Hippy? The man clearly does not look like a hippy - he's dressed like an AAAC member. Do you think that everyone who disagrees with you should be shipped off to a prison camp?


I meant that tongue in cheek! Difficult to get sarcasm across in the written word I guess or I lack the talent to do so.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I meant that tongue in cheek! Difficult to get sarcasm across in the written word I guess or I lack the talent to do so.


I'm certainly relieved to know you aren't serious.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Spence said:


> I'd be curious to know how close he even was...one would think the SS would keep a reasonable distance between the VP and the rest of the world.
> 
> Although, if the man knows enough about Cheney to give him a reasoned opinion, he should also know that Cheney doesn't really give a whip about what he or anyone else thinks. I'm talking about generals and other foreign policy experts here
> 
> -spence


That's that's man's point. If he had really pushed Cheney, it doesn't seem likely that the SS would wait five or ten minutes, then send a lone agent to follow the assailant around the mall and then enquire him in front of his young son whether he had assaulted the VP. He would have been forthrightly 'eating concrete' immediately after the assault, and we'd all be hearing about it in the international media.

Like you, I also doubt whether Cheney cared about the man's opinion. But it is good that such an insulated figure would be exposed from time to time to 'dissident' views from average citizens.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Given Cheney's "tough guy" approach to the world, I'm suprised he didn't have the SS hold the man behind a hedge so he could take a few shots, you know, give him a message to take back to liberal central command 

-spence


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

As initially observed by pt4u67, I suspect that more was said than is being reported in this article. For example, "your actions in Iraq are reprehensible," can become interpretable as a simple assault by simply adding the words, "you'll pay!" The Secret Service agents are as professional as they come and, while the subsequent arrest of the gentleman in question is unfortunate, when all is said and done, I am sure there will have been a sound basis for their actions. As for why he was not taken down on the spot, if there had been any indication that he might be going for a weapon, he would have been knawing on concrete in a heartbeat!


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> As initially observed by pt4u67, I suspect that more was said than is being reported in this article. For example, "your actions in Iraq are reprehensible," can become interpretable as a simple assault by simply adding the words, "you'll pay!"


If he is lying about what he said, the charges probably wouldn't have been only a local misdemeanor (which was later dropped), and the Secret Service would have had something to say to the media other than, essentially, 'no comment'.

But your observation of 'simply adding the words' is an entirely different issue. Anyone could theoretically say anything, such as 'you're a great vice-President', and then _simply add the words_ 'but I'm going to fillet you like a fish', and of course that would be advanced from a mundane into a criminal situation. The man in the article, however, never said anything that could be construed as a threat against Cheney's person.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

However, I'm sure the man was just telling "his" side of the story. I'm no Cheney fan, but we'll see what really happened here. 

For all we know, he may just be trying to hit the lawsuit lottery.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

First off, none of us were there to witness the interaction between Howards and Cheney. This article is slanted because the account of the incident is coming from Howards.

Giving Howards the benefit of the doubt, had he just made his comment about the policies being reprehensible and moved on like he claims, this arrest would appear to be unlawful. Just my opinion from reading the article, I don't believe him and I believe there is more to this story. It is possible that these are some unfortunate circumstances, which Howards has found himself in the middle of, but I don't believe so. I am willing to bet Cheney wouldn't send the S.S. officer after Howards for just making that comment. 

Also from a law enforcement officer's perspective, a great way to elicit an incriminating statement is to ask an apparently stupid question. An example of this is, "Do you know why I stopped you?" For most people, they'll answer, "No what did I do" even if they know why they were stopped. For some they'll answer, "Yeah, I ran that red light back there." A statement like that is great for court. The S.S. agent walking up to Howards and asking, "Did you assault the V.P.?" could have actually been an intelligent question; we'll never know. Maybe Cheney was pushed and maybe it wasn't clear who actually pushed him.

Ultimately, it will be up to the courts to decide. Not being charged criminally from the arrest seems to give his version credence.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Trenditional said:


> This article is slanted because the account of the incident is coming from Howards.


The D.A. was quoted. He said the charge was dismissed because "it appeared it was just essentially his disagreeing with the vice president's policies."

The agent didn't return phone calls. The Secret Service spokesman refused to comment.

I wouldn't call that "slanted."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

We read these stories, and they have been equally represented by liberal Hollywood type's bodyguards roughing up people, and the usual reactions are almost predictable. ' the Secret Service is XYZ' or Cheney initiated retaliation,or the guy must have 'done something.' Well I've got news for you sunshine, NO organization is imune from hubris, overzealousness, illegal activities or just plain stupid judgement calls.This includes; priests, Little League umpires, 911 operators, brownies and the Secret Service. Had this been Harry Truman, He probably would have stopped and had a proper debate sprinkled with a fair exchange of epitaths, followed by a correspondence with his own stamps.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

*A theme or motif is developing*

Cheney makes me sick. His keepers make me sick. This mope who squawked at him makes me sick. The reporters make me sick. Malls make me sick. They all deserve a swift kick in the pants.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Someone in the article confuses assault with battery. If he actually pushed or touched the VP he would be charged with battery or assault and battery, not assault. I tend to think it is probably not the SS agent that is confused. Particularly, from the "Assault? I never pushed him" defense.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Patrick06790 said:


> Cheney makes me sick. His keepers make me sick. This mope who squawked at him makes me sick. The reporters make me sick. Malls make me sick. They all deserve a swift kick in the pants.


I agree about the malls. We ought to nuke them.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

crs said:


> I agree about the malls. We ought to nuke them.


Could we wait until after Neiman's has its next semi-annual men's sale? Please? Thank you for your understanding and patience.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Come now, don't forget, you only get free speech if you are rich enough to afford the 100 K/plate dinners with Cheney, own a lot of stock in Halliburton or Exxon-Mobile (none of those hippy Citgo stockholders now), and buy a few members of congress. 

As to the rest of us, we need to know our place and know that who are we to question our superiors? I mean if we were as good as them, we would be rich too. The heck with the principals of the American Revolution, we Like the land of King George. What were we thinking in 1776?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> As to the rest of us, we need to know our place and know that who are we to question our superiors? I mean if we were as good as them, we would be rich too. The heck with the principals of the American Revolution, we Like the land of King George. What were we thinking in 1776?


For 10 bonus points, will you compare the tone of the Founding Fathers expression to that of the 'villian' assaulting Dick Cheney at the mall?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

No more high blood pressure, no more high blood pressure, no more high blood pressure.... 

Keep repeating, the elections are comming, this too shall pass someday...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Just wondering, are there any posters from VT (soon home to our only Socialist senator)who make sense?

The Secret Service overreacted, no question about it. But in this enviroment can you blame them? How amusing I find it that those who protest that the Bush adminstration was too lax in protecting us prior to 9-11 now have a problem when the Secret Service takes its job seriously.

Thankfully no charges were filed and the man is owed an apology and perhaps a set of VP cufflinks. 

Karl


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

> The Secret Service overreacted, no question about it. But in this enviroment can you blame them?





> How amusing I find it that those who protest that the Bush adminstration was too lax in protecting us prior to 9-11 now have a problem when the Secret Service takes its job seriously.


So by over-reacting they're taking their job 'seriously'? If they respect the Constitution, then they aren't taking their jobs seriously? Gives new insight as to the reasoning behind the Patriot Acts.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Exactly, it's the classic Dick Cheney method of reason...and they've got Alberto Gonzales and company pimping their ride.

-spence


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII,

What sort of margin of error do you think the Secret Service should allow? Would you rather have a Secret Service that overreacts or gives potential threats a wide berth? There are practical national security considerations that you overlook but why let that get in the way of a partisan attack?

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Just wondering, are there any posters from VT (soon home to our only Socialist senator)who make sense?


I'm only aware of two, but there may be more of us.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> JLPWCXIII,
> 
> What sort of margin of error do you think the Secret Service should allow? Would you rather have a Secret Service that overreacts or gives potential threats a wide berth? There are practical national security considerations that you overlook but why let that get in the way of a partisan attack?
> 
> Karl


If the Secret Services chooses to trot out very senior politicians to very public places, they shouldn't be surprised if the occasional citizen makes the odd comment of disagreement with policy. You yourself admitted that they over-reacted and should apologise. If, in say 1998, you saw Vice President Al Gore in a shopping mall and said something like, 'your policy on abortion is reprehensible', do you think that you should be followed around the mall by a SS agent, arrested in front of your young son and thrown in jail?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Just wondering, are there any posters from VT (soon home to our only Socialist senator)who make sense?


Why can't you respectfully disagree with people? After all, no one's attacking Texas just because it harbors the likes of you.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs -

Go ahead and attack Texas - I am a native New Yorker. The real Texans can take take care of themselves very well without my help. I do however wonder if journalism is held in such low esteem bc of people like you. Perhaps not, just wondering.

JLPWCXIII - 

And in 1998 it was a very different security enviroment, but if I made comments that alarmed the Secret Service and they felt that the security of their charge was in jeopardy I would hope they would take appropriate action but in any event I would have just thanked VP Gore for his invention of the internet. Freedom of speech does not mean that you have a right to confront VPOTUS directly or even that what you have to say is guaranteed a large audience. There are plenty of other outlets to voice dissent without having to confront VP Cheney personally and in a manner that alarms the Secret Service. This Cheney dissenter is not languishing in prison for voicing his dissent unlike in some other places and since you have a deep concern for liberty I look forward to your championing of political dissent in Cuba, Iran, Belarus, Communist China, North Korea, Burma, etc.

I am sure the Secret Service (An organization that uniformally disliked the Clintons personally) arrested people who were merely vocal dissenters during the Clinton administartion bc they felt there was a credible threat - and they were right to do so. Do you have no regard for the safety of American leadership in general or do you just have no regard for the safety of American leaders you dislike?

Karl


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Crs -
> 
> JLPWCXIII -
> 
> ...


More straw men. It is interesting that as a conservative, you seem to have the 'guilty until proven innocent' perspective. How big is the sphere around politicians in which the Bill of Rights does not apply? Ten feet? A mile?

Regards.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII,

Perhaps the Secret Service should ask for a preliminary hearing before a judge before taking action against any threats they perceive. I will leave threat assessment up to the professionals and have faith in the men and women of the Secret Service who risk their lives every day.

But I do have two questions for you.

1 - Do you think the Secret Service is the personal Gestapo of the administration.

2 - And what do you think is a prudent policy for the Secret Service? You must be awfully concerned about the violation of people's Second Amendment rights when the Secret Service prohibits those who can lawfully carry weapons from doing so at presidential venues.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl, I was merely pointing out your lack of basic manners and people skills after you insulted an entire state. I'm surprised Texas would have you.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> JLPWCXIII,
> 
> Perhaps the Secret Service should ask for a preliminary hearing before a judge before taking action against any threats they perceive. I will leave threat assessment up to the professionals and have faith in the men and women of the Secret Service who risk their lives every day.
> 
> ...


My questions first, please.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII -

I answered your question. I will leave threat assessment up to the Secret Service and the relative security agencies. I am not an expert in the matter and I trust the expertise and professionalism of the Secret Service. I defer to them on these matters. If you have a credible source that says that the Secret Service is incompetent or lacks to skill to perform its mission theb I would be glad to take at look at what they have to say.

And now if you would be so kind as to answer my questions.

Crs -

A closer reading of my comments would indicate that I did not insult the Green Mountain State. Very sloppy analysis but considering the source not surprising.

Karl


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> JLPWCXIII -
> 
> I answered your question. I will leave threat assessment up to the Secret Service and the relative security agencies. I am not an expert in the matter and I trust the expertise and professionalism of the Secret Service. I defer to them on these matters. If you have a credible source that says that the Secret Service is incompetent or lacks to skill to perform its mission theb I would be glad to take at look at what they have to say.


These, please:


> How big is the sphere around politicians in which the Bill of Rights does not apply? Ten feet? A mile?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

JLPWCXIII,

I think that POTUS and VPOTUS are different cases than say a Senator or Governor but again I will defer to the Secret Service in matters of presidential protection. If you one expresses themselves in a manner that the Secret Service views as a threat then they should act. Unless of course you think the Secret Service is akin to the KGB and is intent on stifling political dissent. Now if you could answer my questions please.

Karl


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> JLPWCXIII,
> 
> I think that POTUS and VPOTUS are different cases than say a Senator or Governor but again I will defer to the Secret Service in matters of presidential protection. If you one expresses themselves in a manner that the Secret Service views as a threat then they should act. Unless of course you think the Secret Service is akin to the KGB and is intent on stifling political dissent. Now if you could answer my questions please.
> 
> Karl


So the SS decides where the Constitution does and does not apply...and can ignore some or all of the Bill of Rights as long as they are doing it in the name of security. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> Just wondering, are there any posters from VT (soon home to our only Socialist senator)who make sense?
> 
> ...


Dang, and I thought I made sense. Silly me thinking that the US Constitution said silly things like we had free speech. All of those court cases supporting free speech over the years must have just been more of them liberal, activist judges making laws against what our betters know is really good for us.

As to our hopefully "socialist" senator to be, he is light years of magnitude better than the idiot republican stooge (my words, sorry if they are offensive to anyone) who is running against him and trying to buy the election (he is on track to have the highest amount of money spent per vote in the US history). At least Bernie has the guts to vote his conscience and what he is told by the VT voters what matters to them instead of following the orders of the talking party heads. I may not agree with all that he says, but at least he is independent.

(VT has a long history of independent minded senators and other politicians. During the Viet Nam war, one of our more beloved Republican Senators bucked his party by saying we should just declare victory and come home. Wish he were around today).

(I swear, the Republican Party is looking more and more like the Stalinist Communist party of old, the members rubber stamping whatever they are told, you are with us 100 % with no dissent or you are a terrorist, incredible propaganda machine, making "truth" out of bald faced lies, kangaroo courts, secret police, etc., etc., etc. Maybe not completely to that extreme yet but&#8230;Whatever happened to the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt? Heck, what ever happened to the Republican Party of Richard Nixon?)


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> (I swear, the Republican Party is looking more and more like the Stalinist Communist party of old, the members rubber stamping whatever they are told, you are with us 100 % with no dissent or you are a terrorist, incredible propaganda machine, making "truth" out of bald faced lies, kangaroo courts, secret police, etc., etc., etc. Maybe not completely to that extreme yet but&#8230;Whatever happened to the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt? Heck, what ever happened to the Republican Party of Richard Nixon?)


Do you really believe that? Especially the part about GOP=Stalinists, secret police and labeling dissenters as terrorists?

Its one thing to be a partisan. It is another matter to demagogue and spew forth vitriol. This applies to both sides of the political argument. Surely the point you are attempting to make would be taken more seriously if you made your argument using facts rather than lifting it from an Air America skit.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Do you really believe that? Especially the part about GOP=Stalinists, secret police and labeling dissenters as terrorists?
> 
> Its one thing to be a partisan. It is another matter to demagogue and spew forth vitriol. This applies to both sides of the political argument. Surely the point you are attempting to make would be taken more seriously if you made your argument using facts rather than lifting it from an Air America skit.


No, of course I did not mean all of what I said. I though it would be clear that I am being sarcastic.

I should say however that I am very concerned about the direction we appear to have been going over the last six years and that there are some very real parallels with the past (and with, shall we say, less than democratic governments). The lack of independent people in Washington is one of my concerns and I did mean my comment about where is the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. This is not the populist Republican party of the working man that was there when Teddy R was president. There are also ongoing attacks on our legal freedoms as I see it. I do not really have the time or energy to detail all of the "facts" that you ask, but they are out there. The fact the Dubya can now label someone an "enemy of the state" and then arrest and hold that person without trial even if he/she is a US citizen is very worrisome and yes it does have potential for real abuse. The propaganda machine I talk about is huge and very sophisticated. Look how many people in the US now feel that we should blindly support a war based on ______ (we won't get into that here now should we!!).

As to Air America, how about the other side which in my liberal opinion is MUCH worse (Rush, O'Riely, FOX news in general, etc&#8230. At least we get some opposing views out of Air America. Granted they are not as sophisticated as the right wing-nuts but they are trying. Dissent is GOOD!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> No, of course I did not mean all of what I said. I though it would be clear that I am being sarcastic.
> 
> I should say however that I am very concerned about the direction we appear to have been going over the last six years and that there are some very real parallels with the past (and with, shall we say, less than democratic governments). The lack of independent people in Washington is one of my concerns and* I did mean my comment about where is the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. This is not the populist Republican party of the working man that was there when Teddy R was president. * There are also ongoing attacks on our legal freedoms as I see it. I do not really have the time or energy to detail all of the "facts" that you ask, but they are out there. The fact the Dubya can now label someone an "enemy of the state" and then arrest and hold that person without trial even if he/she is a US citizen is very worrisome and yes it does have potential for real abuse. * The propaganda machine I talk about is huge and very sophisticated. * Look how many people in the US now feel that we should blindly support a war based on ______ (we won't get into that here now should we!!).
> 
> As to Air America, how about the other side which in my liberal opinion is MUCH worse (Rush, O'Riely, FOX news in general, etc&#8230. At least we get some opposing views out of Air America. Granted they are not as sophisticated as the right wing-nuts but they are trying. Dissent is GOOD!


Do you mean the propoganda machine that purports that the imperialism of Abraham Lincoln and the 'New Imperialism' of TR's was not rooted exactly in the populist platform?

Populism politically has always been the public face of imperialists. The 'nuts' are the ones that haven't read history and claim otherwise.

In regards to your question, "Whatever happened to the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt?"

You're lookin' at it. You just don't understand it.

As a conservative, I can tell you it's quite distressing to be forced into choosing between secular-progressives and populist-progressives.

For what it's worth, you're probably 'supposed' to be on the same page with this guy https://vtcommons.org/node/513

*The myth of Lincoln turns out to be an insidious lie perpetrated by some of our most prominent U.S. historians, political scientists, religious leaders, and politicians for nearly 150 years. *

I would highly recommend the book he references - "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo - to you.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Do you mean the propoganda machine that purports that the imperialism of Abraham Lincoln and the 'New Imperialism' of TR's was not rooted exactly in the populist platform?
> 
> Populism politically has always been the public face of imperialists. The 'nuts' are the ones that haven't read history and claim otherwise.
> 
> ...


From Mr DiLorenzo:

"After the publication of my 2002 book, The Real Lincoln, I continued to research and write on the topic. Among the things I've learned since then is that Abraham Lincoln was a far worse tyrant than I portrayed him as being in that book. A thousand times worse.

I've also learned that there is only one genuine Lincoln scholar in America - David Donald - and he's retired. The rest are all Lincoln cultists and court historians. The cultists, like Harry Jaffa and his merry band of Straussians, ignore actual American history, fabricate a false history, or dabble in semantics and word games in order to portray The Great Centralizer as a god-like figure. They routinely refer to him as "Father Abraham" and compare him to Jesus or Moses. They do this because their agenda is not only the deification of Lincoln, but of executive power and nationalism in general."

Interesting guy, he sounds very balanced and sane.

In one of the reviews of his books he is apparently saying a peaceful secession would have been better than a war of aggression against his own countrymen (paraphrased as I forgot the exact words but they were very close).

Again, sounds very balanced and sane. (Or bull moose crazy as defined in "One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest") Anyone who believes we should have let the South leave is not too balanced in my book (which is probably very warped in your opinion).

Does this guy also think the Queen of England is selling cocaine?

As to your comments on TR, I am referring to his monopoly bashing and such activities not his "imperialism" of which read South and Central American History to see where and how he acted.

Yeah I agree, I don't understand the present Republican Party, that is true. But I do understand it aint the same as the old party.. and I do read a lot of history but mainstream scholars not the neo-con ones referenced by Mr DiLorenzo. I guess its time now to hear that all college professors and historians are tools of the liberal left elite latte drinking volvo driving .......

I'll stop now, it aint worth the aggrivation (one suggestion to you, read the Federalist Papers sometime to get an idea of just what they were thinking when they wrote the constitution).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> From Mr DiLorenzo:
> I'll stop now, it aint worth the aggrivation (one suggestion to you, read the Federalist Papers sometime to get an idea of just what they were thinking when they wrote the constitution).


I have them right by my desk and for the record have read them many times.

Lincoln and TR violated most of the thoughts expressed in them.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I have them right by my desk and for the record have read them many times.
> 
> Lincoln and TR violated most of the thoughts expressed in them.


I agree with many of Michael's posts, but I will have to draw the line at T Roosevelt and Lincoln...both were war-mongers, and Roosevelt, additionally, was cruel to animals.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think both men need to be judged by the standards of their time, not the standards of ours. 

I can think of few if any countries other than possibly Czechoslovakia that have voluntarily allowed parts of the country to secede.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

forsbergacct2000,

Speaking of the breakup of Czechoslovakia, a very good book on the subject is "Czechoslovakia: The Short Goodbye" by Abby Innes. 

Karl


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I think both men need to be judged by the standards of their time, not the standards of ours.
> 
> I can think of few if any countries other than possibly Czechoslovakia that have voluntarily allowed parts of the country to secede.


There were many standards in their times, and pacifism was one of them.

Regards


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

JLPWCXIII said:


> So the SS decides where the Constitution does and does not apply...and can ignore some or all of the Bill of Rights as long as they are doing it in the name of security. Thanks for clarifying.


"the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment is not absolute. There are certain limited classes of speech which may be prevented or punished by the state consistent with the principles of the First Amendment: (1) obscene speech; (2) libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like; (3) speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute; and (4) _speech which is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and __which is likely to incite or produce such action_." (emphasis mine) _Byers v. Edmundson_, 712 So.2d 681.

The Secret Service does not have to decide how far Constitutional protections of freedom of speech apply, because the courts already have. The Secret Service could have done far worse to him and argued that under the facts available at the time, they perceived an imminent lawless action.

As the case stands, Howards was charged only with harassment and the charge was dismissed. I think a credible argument could have been made that his behavior did constitute harassment.

But I'll give it my best Democratic Underground imitation: "We live under a totalitarian BushCo regime which does not tolerate any form of dissent!"

Actually if that were true all the Liberals would be rotting in jail instead of posting on the Internet.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

In regards to the earlier comment regarding people from Vermont making sense, I think it is interesting that the 2006 ranking of smartest states puts VT as the #1 state in the US. (Also interesting is that the top five "smartest" states are all what are generally considered "liberal" northeast states). NY is 15 and TX is 25. Four out of five of the least smartest states are states tradtionally considered "conservative" with California as the outlier. 



I aplogize for being a troll here, but it was too funny to pass up. 

Have a fine day!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> In regards to the earlier comment regarding people from Vermont making sense, I think it is interesting that the 2006 ranking of smartest states puts VT as the #1 state in the US. (Also interesting is that the top five "smartest" states are all what are generally considered "liberal" northeast states). NY is 15 and TX is 25. Four out of five of the least smartest states are states tradtionally considered "conservative" with California as the outlier.
> 
> I aplogize for being a troll here, but it was too funny to pass up.
> 
> Have a fine day!


Hey Genius (LOL - sorry ) did you bother to read the criteria?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Of course I did, and I understood it too!

It was posted in fun, try to look at it as such.

Now what number was Florida?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Of course I did, and I understood it too!
> 
> It was posted in fun, try to look at it as such.
> 
> Now what number was Florida?


Florida was ranked #29 among states on implementing a far left, teacher's union-centric, education agenda.

I will have to call Jeb and find out why he let us rise that high!

Perhaps this is a 'better' list ...

or this https://phoenix.about.com/b/a/256701.htm


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

Kav said:


> We read these stories, and they have been equally represented by liberal Hollywood type's bodyguards roughing up people, and the usual reactions are almost predictable. ' the Secret Service is XYZ' or Cheney initiated retaliation,or the guy must have 'done something.' Well I've got news for you sunshine, NO organization is imune from hubris, overzealousness, illegal activities or just plain stupid judgement calls.This includes; priests, Little League umpires, 911 operators, brownies and the Secret Service. Had this been Harry Truman, He probably would have stopped and had a proper debate sprinkled with a fair exchange of epitaths, followed by a correspondence with his own stamps.


epithet, rather than epitaph?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

gregp said:


> epithet, rather than epitaph?


Be patient, the author is from California (#47).

It would have been interesting to be alive when we had a president with such character. We could have used him the last 10 years.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Be patient, the author is from California (#47).
> 
> It would have been interesting to be alive when we had a president with such character. We could have used him the last 10 years.


He was viewed much the same way as GW is now. Following in the footsteps of the urbane and worldly FDR the haberdasher from MO. was seen as a simpleton and rube. In retrospect however he helped transition the U.S. supreme world power it is now.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> He was viewed much the same way as GW is now. Following in the footsteps of the urbane and worldly FDR the haberdasher from MO. was seen as a simpleton and rube. In retrospect however he helped transition the U.S. supreme world power it is now.


I would argue there are a lot of differences. When Truman was picked as Vice President (Roosevelt did not really want him from what I remember reading) Truman already had a history of attacking corruption in government through his very extensive review of war time contracts, overruns, etc. He had in my mind anyway, already proven himself. (I know Dubya has a record from being governor of Texas, but I can't make any comparison to Truman's record.)

An interesting side point about him: I seem to recall reading that his mother-in-law never really thought he was good enough or successful enough for her daughter!

He was also blind to his daughter's lack of musical talent. If you ever hear the recording of her singing, it is pretty bad but Truman though it was great.


----------

