Fired up..

I am fired up and up on my soap box.

While studying for my Marketing class, and watching the NBC evening news, I heard a story about a rally where a couple was arrested for simply wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt (this was at a open public speech in a public area).

To the secret service (SS Agents) agents who ordered this I say:

How dare you? How dare you skirt the constitution for your own political beliefs. You need to be fired, stripped of all retirement benefits, never allowed to serve in a public postion for life, and prosecuted for abuse of authority!

To President Bush

To allow this to occur, you have shown that are on the same level as Joseph Stalin. You have divided this nation and have bastardized my religious beliefs and the constitution of the this great United States of America for your own political gain. Worse than any blow job or any break in, you have committed treason against the people of the United States. I pray that the people remember these and other trangressions to legally remove you from office this November.

Off of my soapbox. Feel free to contact the SS. I would love to make case history against them.




For all of the Neo-cons in the crowd, a little bit about myself. I am a former cop and a Navy veteran (6 years). I am a card carrying member of both the ACLU and the NRA because I believe that both organizations support the most important document in our lives as American: The Constitution. This document is more important than the President, more important than any civil servant.

 

Soap box derby

The hateful anti-Bush crowd has proven itself to be, on many occassions, reckless and dangerous. The SS, as the 'guardians' of our Commander in Chief, has a duty to protect him from violent left wing lunatics. Kudos to the SS for keeping irrational, illogical, and possibly dangerous protestors away from President Bush!

 

Oh yes, wearing an anti-Bush T-shirt is such a threat. (and to think both "protesters were in fact Republicans).

 

Re: Soap box derby

I agree. There's almost always more to the story. I find it very hard to believe that the secret service singled out and arrested protestors for what they were saying or wearing. I'd say they were getting a bit roudy and the secret service did what it felt was necessary. If it were really as simple as Mr. Engineer puts it, it would be a massive scandal and you would not stop hearing about it for months, especially from the liberally slanted major television networks. And of course the Kerry campaign would play it to the hilt; who could blame them? The conclusion is simple: either the media is putting a liberal slant on the story, Mr. Engineer has had too much to drink on this Friday night, or both.

 

I think it is sick and ridiculous, in Charles Mingus' immortal phrase, when the Secret Service is compared to the SS, or Dubya to Stalin. I happen to like Bush less and less, but this sort of comparison, with its implied contempt for the victims of genocide and its irrational hatred of American institutions--the secret serivce thing goes without saying, or should, and likening *any* US president to Stalin (or Hitler) is really awful--just makes me the more inclined to suppress my dislike and vote for Bush anyway.

 

Perhaps you should step-down, take a deep breath, and think about this for a second.

Do you honestly, truly believe that the people were arrested for nothing more than wearing a t-shirt? If you really are a former cop, you'd know that about 1/3 of the truth is reported in the media in regards to law enforcement action.

Example: Just recently, in a suburb south of Boston, two teenagers were arrested for skateboarding in the street. It was front-page news in at least 3 newspapers, and on all the local news channels. People were lining up to villify the cop that arrested them, comparing him to a Nazi and demanding his job.

Well, guess what? The media conveniently left out the entire story. The kids were skateboarding on a busy street, had set-up ramps and jumps in the middle of the street, and were told no less than 3 times prior by the same cop to stay out of the street. The cop told the kids that they would be arrested if he had to come back again, so of course the idiots kept at it. The 4th time the cop came back, there was literally a traffic jam, as cars couldn't get by because of the morons skateboarding in the street. What exactly should the cop have done differently?

If you still believe that there were no other circumstances justifying the arrest of the t-shirt wearers, you've either never been a cop, or you did your entire career in Records or Communications.

 

Bruce
You are a silly man.

I merely reported what was on the story. I have seen quite a bit of abuse of power by the SS. The line "power corrupts" and "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is very true. I am not sure what makes these agents tick - never have (Fish and Game Wardens have the same "true believer" attitude).

Of course their might be a second side to the story, and of course the media (the right has gotten much worse than the left) tends to leave things out. However, the full story might yet be told as the ACLU has filed a federal lawsuit naming the SS Officers involved and the head of the SS.

I noticed one thing about you Bruce, you tend to assume too much.

I don't drink Cyrus. Like yourself, I do rant at times though.

 

How so?

No, you didn't. Not by a longshot.

You stated that you "heard a story" about a couple being arrested for wearing anti-Bush shirts. You didn't even post a link to support the story.

You then went on to compare the United States Secret Service of being Nazis ("SS Agents"....anyone in LE knows that the proper abbreviation is USSS) and villifying them for an incident that you know nearly nothing about.

You then go on to compare President Bush to Josef Stalin, and accuse him of being a traitor. Once again, if you had a single shred of a clue about law enforcement, you'd know that the President is always clueless (by design) about USSS activities, especially in regards to his protection.

I don't believe you.

Any law enforcement officer who has ever worked with the USSS will tell you that they are the most professional, cautious Federal Agents that they have ever worked with. I've worked with just about every Federal LE agency you can think of, and I've never had a problem with the USSS.

Wow....the ACLU is suing law enforcement officers? Stop the presses!!! This is such an unprecedented event that it automatically proves the guilt of the USSS Agents!

Now, that's pretty funny.

You flame an honorable group of Federal Agents, compare the President of the United States to Josef Stalin, and call the President a traitor, all based on something you "heard"......but I assume too much?

BTW....you never answered my original question;

Do you honestly, truly believe that the people were arrested for nothing more than wearing a t-shirt?

Yes or no?

 

I stated you are silly because you make baseless statements.

(and example of that is when you stated most Cops and Military personnel are Republican. Sorry, no matter how you put it, you don't know most, or even a very small minority of the amount of cops or Military personnel to make that assumption. Your statement is without merit or facts - or in fact just silly)

OK - the USSS. I will give you that one.

Why would I care if you believe me? Do you think you are that important?

Did you watch the NBC Evening News? It was reported on that report. Watch the News.

Do I think there is more to the story? Of course I do. Do I think the USSS abuses its authority at times? The courts will decide that point. Do I think the President doesn't know about the actions of the USSS? Come on - we had this discussion before, although I don't like GW, I certainly don't think the man is stupid. Of course he knows it.

I do have to give the Republican's one thing. They are a well-organized and well-coordinated and well-oiled machine. They will pick up a nothing story and make it bigger than it really is. They will distort the truth to their own gain. (hence the Willie Horton ads for Bush Sr)

The Faux News Network has managed to show that the media truly has a lot more power than perhaps our government itself)

 

What was the voting record of the military in 2000? You know, the votes that weren't counted until after the election was decided?

As for cops, I informally polled the 260 people that I work with at my station, and out of the 221 who replied, there were 214 for Bush, 5 for Kerry, and 2 undecided. That's in Kerry's home state, keep in mind.

You should.

I have all but called you a liar in regards to your claim that you are a former police officer, and you don't seem to care. Well, I'm taking the next step.

You're a liar, just like your boy John Kerry. I don't believe that you've ever been a cop.

Let's swap personal information by PM, and we can check-out each other, since public employment & pay records are public information, and therefore available by FOIA.

I have nothing to hide.

 

Having spent a great deal of time in Boston, I have yet to meet a single person that has ever voted for Kennedy either - and yet, he seems to be there year after year. I guess someone likes him.

I am glad you took a poll. It still doesn't substaniate your statement.

Why would I lie? What would I hope to accomplish? I used it as a frame of reference to show you that all former military and LE do not think as you do. Even General Schwartkopf's statments refute your beleifs. Why not just state it as an opinion and leave it at that.

As for your beliefs concerning my background, again, do you think you are that important for it to make that much of a difference in my life? Grow up Bruce. I will say that it was a large department in California during the mid to late 80's. (and I quit because the hours were terrible, it strained my marriage, and engineers make a lot more than cops - about the only advantage I saw was the excessive retirement benefits)

Tell me, what has Kerry lied about? And again, I could really care less about Kerry. Before this election I hadn't heard that much about the man. I do know the alternative though and I definitely do not like it.


I know you are intelligent, but do you know why Kerry chose to trump his military background? It was in response to Bush's statement about Kerry's ability to lead in a time of war. Having served in wartime, I think he has shown that he can lead. Bush only lead his buddies to the local pub. Will Kerry make a good CIC? Again, heck if I know. Bush certainly hasn't done a very good job.

 

Are you sure that you don't have a law degree?

Let's try this again;

I'm calling you a liar when you claim to be a former police officer.

You're a liar.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. How much more clear do you need this to be?

If you're not a liar, PM me with your personal information, so I can confirm that you were a police officer.

I have offered to PM you with my personal information (even though anyone with a brain could locate & verify me with my information already posted), and the offer stands.

 

Aww - another idiot with a badge (or does he?) Since I have really no way of know who you are (you might even be a convict in the local Pen) - why would I give you personal information?

Idiot -- idiot - your panties are on fire. Now there - do you feel better now.

Grow up.

 

I've offered to give you my personal information. It's easily verifiable.

BTW....I have publically, and once again here, have called you a liar when you state that you were once a police officer.

You're a liar.

You have never been a police officer.

There, I've said it.

Feel free to contradict me.

 

I love the banter.


Ok - I will bite:

I say it for the record, you are an Idiot. Not only an idiot, but a first class idiot.

Any real officer would never give out personal information to anyone, especially on the Internet. If you are stupid enough to do so, then you are even a bigger idiot than I thought you were.

Do you feel better now? I bet you this entire thread gets deleted by the owners of the forum.

Good night - good luck - and go to bed for Christ's sake - its 2:50 am in Beantown.

 

Now seriously Bruce
Aren't you worried about some wack job going after you? I ran a search on your name and it came up with lots of information - more information than what I would want someone to know.

Come on Bruce my boy - have you ever heard of the MM, BGF, NF, AB's etc? They love to run this type of stuff and beleive me, hate cops. That badge and gun ain't going to protect you much either.

Be careful out there and be careful who you give out information to.

 

No.

Don't be shy....share it with everyone!!

Oh, it protects me plenty, don't you worry about that! See 18 U.S.C. 44 926b.

You claim to know a lot about me, yet I don't even know what you first name is.....who is being secretive????

 

Mr. Engineer, even though you've been on "my side" in several posts lately, I think this kind of personal baiting and attacking is deplorable. Can we please return to a more civil discourse?

I don't despise the conservatives and neo-cons on this board - in fact I rather enjoy their opinions (though I disagree with them heartily). At the same time, I wish that we could treat each other with respect and elevate this debate to a more professional level.

Bruce, you're a cop and a conservative - and I'm glad you have the badge, I'm sure you are dutiful and an honorable person. I've read enough of your posts now to know that you absolutely believe in free speech and protection of the constitution, more than I can say for others (right and left) on this board.

 

You are right Carl. It was enjoyable baiting on Bruce. The entire thread was a rant anyway. I am investigating the entire story, trying to find out what really happened (they were arrested for criminal tresspass - but the charges were thrown out - apparently charges such as these brought on by the USSS are thrown out a majority of the time).

Bruce: I know what I did during the 80's, so proving it to you doesn't accomplish anything. Having dealt with major players in the BGF, MM, NF and others, I avoid giving out personally identifiable information to people I do not know. I am very surprised that you do so, but that is your business.

As always, be careful out there. Lots of weirdos and con-men (and women) in the world of the Internet.

 

Yes! Thank you, Carl.

Amen.

My opinion, too... as I believe I've expressed in one way or another elsewhere in these forums.

One of the things that, sadly, has now gotten lost in this thread (but which I'm hoping against hope maybe we can restore now) is that which is at the heart of the thread-starting post: The law enforcement abuses that we've seen in this country since 9/11 which are committed in the name of national security or homeland security or in compliance with the Patriot Act. I know it's been used and re-used to the point that it's starting to lose its meaning, but I would ask everyone to slow down long enough to read and really consider the following well-worn quote by one of our founding fathers:

• "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  
  -- Benjamin Franklin, from his Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759; the saying was the publication's motto.

Though Mr. Engineer (with whom I often agree) muted, in this case, the essential message of his original post by his histrionics and subsequent unnecessary and childish engagement with Bruce, the kinds of law enforcement abuses he cites are neither unheard of nor decreasing in frequency since 9/11. Last week, in San Francisco, local TV and radio stations were awash with announcements of the government's interest in speaking with a young man whom neighboring security cameras had captured standing on the sidewalk, looking up at the Transamerica building, and taking notes. That's it. Just looking at a building and writing something down on a pad of paper (presumably about it), then just walking away. It was noted that authorities agreed the young man could merely have been an architectural student admiring the unusual building's design and making notes for a class assignment, but the jack-booted.... er... I'm sorry... I mean the police wanted to chat with him anyway. Viewers/listeners were invited to contact police or the FBI if they had any information about the man.

If the frightening, civil-liberty-chilling ramifications of that are not immediately apparent even to the most conservative of our numbers, here, then perhaps I'm underestimating this nation's resolve to stay free and to honor our precious Constitution. Perhaps Plato's prediction that democracy necessarily passes into despotism wasn't isolated to the Athenians after all.

In subsequent newspaper and other articles about the police security bulletin regarding the man, it was stated that he was also observed taking photographs; that he was Middle-Eastern in appearance, about 30 to 35 years old, 5 feet 5 inches to 5 feet 8 inches tall, with no facial hair; and that he may speak with an accent. (Gee, surprise, surprise.) In light of 9/11, I can certainly understand how some -- many, in fact -- might add all that up and get, as a result, that that young man was most likely engaging in some kind of terrorist surveillance activity; and that, therefore, authorities were justified in wanting to question him. But that's the whole point. They're not -- not even in light of 9/11. Liberty is liberty. It is what it is, and its Consitutional meaning hasn't changed just because Osama Bin Laden blind-sided us in 2001. Nor should that be the occasion for changing liberty's meaning in any case. Re-read Franklin's quote, above. Nothing could be more relevant to it as this incident. We are either free to stand on the street, gaze at a building, take pictures, make sketches, take notes, and walk away without being stopped for questioning by authorities, or we're not. His being Middle-Eastern in appearance makes no difference. We're either free or we're not -- all of us, no matter who we are. That's what our founding fathers intended. George Bush and those of his ilk are running roughshod over that... and few, if any, are calling them on it.

Frankly, it scares the hell out of me. The hell, I tell you. The hell.

Freedom is a delicate thing. The Patriot Act and the sensibilities which created the Office of Homeland Security are well-meaning, but reckless. Few Americans understand the Consitutional issues, so popular support of such transgressive policies cannot be used as a barometer. The Constitution was created to protect the least of us from oppression, even in the face of popular support for it. I implore everyone -- even the most buttoned-down, law-and-order types among us -- to slow down for a moment and think about what's happening. We all want to be safe, but I always thought we wanted, even more, to be free.