NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I think this is a bit of good news
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/16/feds_pay_80000_over_anti_bush_t_shirts/

80 thousand payed to couple arrested for refusing to remove an anti-bush T-shirt

So do you think they should have been removed? if so should they have been arrested from the rally?

Only $80k? For violating the first amendment? As far as I'm concerned, they're owed millions.

Only $80k? For violating the first amendment? As far as I'm concerned, they're owed millions.

Really? It didn't actually do any long term harm to them, at all. 80k sounds fair.

Personally I think this is a bit of good news
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/16/feds_pay_80000_over_anti_bush_t_shirts/

80 thousand payed to couple arrested for refusing to remove an anti-bush T-shirt

So do you think they should have been removed? if so should they have been arrested from the rally?

I think it's a damn shame they settled.

How dare they interfere with Bush getting his hand picked audiences. He can't live with the idea not everyone is a fan.:rolleyes:

Now, why don't you guys make sure they need to pay 80k every time they violate your constitution? Methinks that ought to send the right message. Those things have a tendency of adding up quickly.

I think it's a damn shame they settled.

I kind of agree here but at least it shows they were not big money grubbers ...

White House spokesman Blair Jones said the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing.

So basically, they think what they did was fine and will probably do it again.

So basically, they think what they did was fine and will probably do it again.
Some idiots never learn.

Some idiots never learn.


i think the GOP was created with that slogan

They were harmed, immesurably. Their constitutional rights were violated. The very first amendment to the constitution says the government CAN NOT do what they did.

They can not.

And they did anyway.

Any violation of the constitution is egregious. Any violation causes immesurable harm. That is why we have the first amendment, because we recognize that the right to free speech is paramount to a free society.

A right the government violated.


hear hear! i fully agree

Really? It didn't actually do any long term harm to them, at all. 80k sounds fair.

They were harmed, immesurably. Their constitutional rights were violated. The very first amendment to the constitution says the government CAN NOT do what they did.

They can not.

And they did anyway.

Any violation of the constitution is egregious. Any violation causes immesurable harm. That is why we have the first amendment, because we recognize that the right to free speech is paramount to a free society.

A right the government violated.

I kind of agree here but at least it shows they were not big money grubbers ...

Should of got 'em for millions then given it away.

Their constitutional rights were violated. The very first amendment to the constitution says the government CAN NOT do what they did.

They can not.

And they did anyway.


So?


Any violation of the constitution is egregious. Any violation causes immesurable harm.

Any? Seriously? What harm has this casued them exactly?

I'm not defending the government in anyway, and think it's absolutely appalling what they did, but the actual action committed by the government is trivial at most when considering how much suffering the couple actually had. The action is serious not because of the harm the government caused, but because it undermined the constitution and could have set a bad precedent. The government should be punished and warned severely, but the couple does not need to be showered in riches.

Should of got 'em for millions then given it away.

hell no


any money that the couple would have gotten from the federal government is nothing more than hard earned taxpayers money going towards our president violating the constitution


personally, no matter the result of this case, this issue infuriates me, because once again I'M having to pay for one of this administration's NUMEROUS mistakes


the person in charge of the decision to arrest the couple should have to face prison time for VIOLATING the supreme law of the land (the constitution) and/or should have to be forced to fork over their own private funds as settlement, instead of the taxpayers'

I guess it costs about 80,000 to violate the constitution now. What a precedent, now the gov can do what they want and face the enourmous fee of 80,000 if they lose.

I would normally support the idea that the government, in violating the Constitution, attacked all of us as well and owes every American $80,000 as well. Unfortunately, since we'd be essentially paying ourselves, I'll settle for A.G. Alberto Gonzales cleaning my house once a week for a year. :)

Why the hell were they arrested in the first place?!? Were the police GOP members?

The government should be punished and warned severely

How? I'm all for putting Bush and his cabinet in jail with life sentences for this dangerous precedence setting, which easily leads to dictatorial measures.

But I doubt any of them will see time behind bars.

I would normally support the idea that the government, in violating the Constitution, attacked all of us as well and owes every American $80,000 as well. Unfortunately, since we'd be essentially paying ourselves, I'll settle for A.G. Alberto Gonzales cleaning my house once a week for a year. :)

Hear hear!

I would have to find a fake house to REALLY dirty up first though ...

Now, why don't you guys make sure they need to pay 80k every time they violate your constitution? Methinks that ought to send the right message. Those things have a tendency of adding up quickly.

QFT.

Now, why don't you guys make sure they need to pay 80k every time they violate your constitution? Methinks that ought to send the right message. Those things have a tendency of adding up quickly.

Unfortunately, too many of us are willing to sell our freedoms far more cheaply.

Unfortunately, too many of us are willing to sell our freedoms far more cheaply.

I am fine with people selling their own freedoms if they so choose for the most part, my problem comes when they sell mine

True. It wouldn't kill me to see the "terrorists hate our freedoms so let's get rid of 'em" crowd pawn off their freedom of speech as long as I get to keep mine.

I wonder if you can get Noam Chomsky shirts.

Hear hear!

I would have to find a fake house to REALLY dirty up first though ...

I have three children. Mine's fine. :)

I have three children. Mine's fine. :)

...I thought you had twins this time around though?

Good to know the Thought Police have some money to throw around.

Before Gordon came in, we had quite a few arrests that I heard about for wearing "Bollocks to Blair" on a top.

...I thought you had twins this time around though?

Yes. Little Goofball and the twins. That's it.

That's plenty. :)

Yes. Little Goofball and the twins. That's it.

That's plenty. :)

Oh! Oh...so you weren't counting yourself...okay, that makes sense.

Oh! Oh...so you weren't counting yourself...okay, that makes sense.

:eek:

Oops. My bad. :p

:D

Wow! Maybe I can get $80k for wearing my T shirt to a Hillary rally. :)

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-redefeat.jpg

Wow! Maybe I can get $80k for wearing my T shirt to a Hillary rally. :)

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/shirtsquare-redefeat.jpg

If you don't get laughed out for being a complete idiot.

If you don't get laughed out for being a complete idiot.
No, let him do it. Public humiliation is a good way to solve those kinds of views.

No, let him do it. Public humiliation is a good way to solve those kinds of views.

That and pie sniping. *nod*

Only $80k? For violating the first amendment? As far as I'm concerned, they're owed millions.

Except it wasn't really, because they wore the shirt with explicit intent of disruption, not just to make a point, or in the process of making a point they were intedning merely to offend. Unless you think shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is protected speech, of course.

That and pie sniping. *nod*

Considering your weapons of choice, I've always wondered how you would react to soap and clean water. *prepares catapult*

Considering your weapons of choice, I've always wondered how you would react to soap and clean water. *prepares catapult*

:eek:

AIEEE!!!!

*dives into mud*

God knows why they were arrested in the first place. That was a clear violation of the first amendment.

Except it wasn't really, because they wore the shirt with explicit intent of disruption, not just to make a point, or in the process of making a point they were intedning merely to offend. Unless you think shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is protected speech, of course.


Shut up.

Except it wasn't really, because they wore the shirt with explicit intent of disruption, not just to make a point, or in the process of making a point they were intedning merely to offend. Unless you think shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is protected speech, of course.
Your conclusion was bad and you should feel bad.

Next question.

Except it wasn't really, because they wore the shirt with explicit intent of disruption, not just to make a point, or in the process of making a point they were intedning merely to offend. Unless you think shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is protected speech, of course.So now dissent is the same as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Do the neocons have such delicate feelings that disagreeing will cause a riot? I know they hate to be disagreed with, but I figured that was because they think people don't already know they're full of shit.

So now dissent is the same as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre? Do the neocons have such delicate feelings that disagreeing will cause a riot? I know they hate to be disagreed with, but I figured that was because they think people don't already know they're full of shit.

QFT. Q. F. T.

No, let him do it. Public humiliation is a good way to solve those kinds of views.

When I have worn it in public I have received only positive comments, like "I love your shirt," or "Where can I get one?" Most of these comments have been from younger people. (late teens to mid 20's) Makes me happy to know there are young people who know Hillary for what she is. http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/badger.gif

Makes me happy to know there are young people who know Hillary for what she is.
A dialectical-materialist Marxist-communist?

Yeah. And Gordon Brown's a socialist. :p

Read (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html).

Compare (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/).

Stop waffling nonsense.

Click Stand;12975035']I guess it costs about 80,000 to violate the constitution now. What a precedent, now the gov can do what they want and face the enourmous fee of 80,000 if they lose.

But surely they violated the constitutional right of ever American citizen and should compensate everyone for having done something like that?

I would demand it if I was from America... 80 k would get you a year or 2 of collage in America. or the whole thing plus nightly parties every night in the UK... :)

Providing Affordable and Accessible Health Care...
Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming...
Ending the War in Iraq... Yeah, it's obvious. She must be a commie. Especially since we all know that universal healthcare is a secret communist plot.

She must be a commie. Especially since we all know that universal healthcare is a secret communist plot.
Someone's been watching Sicko...

Providing Affordable and Accessible Health Care...

Affordable for who? Socialized medicine is anything but accessible, especially for quality care.

Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming...

Fighting opening Anwar, against drilling off the coast of California and Florida...and definitely not a poster child for "Global Warming."

Ending the War in Iraq...

Perhaps in a way that won't cause a total collapse of the government and full-scale civil war there, which is no different than what most Republicans.

Yeah, it's obvious. She must be a commie. Especially since we all know that universal healthcare is a secret communist plot.

Ok, commie may be just a tad bit strong. I'll settle for left wing Socialist except for her stance on the war, which is centrist.

Except it wasn't really, because they wore the shirt with explicit intent of disruption, not just to make a point, or in the process of making a point they were intedning merely to offend. Unless you think shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater is protected speech, of course.

there's so much wrong with this it is difficult to explain without charts.

Ok, commie may be just a tad bit strong. I'll settle for left wing Socialist except for her stance on the war, which is centrist.
Clinton's about as Socialist as Maggie Thatcher's left tit.

Neither universal healthcare, appreciating the threats of climate change, nor opposing the second invasion of Iraq are in any way exclusive to socialists.

One could have all three in a manifesto of a right-authoritarian.

Clinton's about as Socialist as Maggie Thatcher's left tit.

Neither universal healthcare, appreciating the threats of climate change, nor opposing the second invasion of Iraq are in any way exclusive to socialists.

One could have all three in a manifesto of a right-authoritarian.

If she opposed the invasion, why did she vote to invade?

If she opposed the invasion, why did she vote to invade?
My apologies, I misread Bitchkitten's post, thought (s)he meant that Clinton had opposed the invasion. I don't bother to keep up with a power-hungry harpy's voting record.

Opposition or not, my point stands; she certainly isn't a socialist.

Affordable for who? Socialized medicine is anything but accessible, especially for quality care.
Facts disagree.

Facts disagree.

Is this the part where we go "The truth has a well-known liberal bias"?
;)

Is this the part where we go "The truth has a well-known liberal bias"?
;)

I think we have to wait for Oklatex to claim that the folks who praise national healthcare have a liberal bias before we do that. :p

I think we have to wait for Oklatex to claim that the folks who praise national healthcare have a liberal bias before we do that. :p

Good point. *bows*

Personally I think this is a bit of good news
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/16/feds_pay_80000_over_anti_bush_t_shirts/

80 thousand payed to couple arrested for refusing to remove an anti-bush T-shirt

So do you think they should have been removed? if so should they have been arrested from the rally?

My faith in the world is restored. Sort of.