Town-hall clash! Arrest threat over Obama 'Joker' poster Officer threatens arrest: This ain't A

Town-hall clash! Arrest threat over Obama 'Joker' poster Officer threatens arrest: This ain't America no more

www.wnd.com

"This used to be America," argued a protester outside a health-care town hall meeting in Reston, Va., after a security officer threatened him with arrest for holding up a sign with a picture critical of Barack Obama.

The officer's response?

"It ain't no more, OK?"

(visit the link for the full news article)

As somebody who reads this forum everyday, I saw the constant bashing of Bush. The calling him a Fascist. Now I believe that he was trying to do good for the country, I to did not like some of things that were pushed through in the name of security. Not that I believed in my heart of hearts that he or Cheney would use it against us. But that whoever came after him would, case in point Barry!
For you on the left, I know you will knock the source of this news article. Typical, but try and knock the content if you can or dare!


www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The article was pretty good until they had to go an throw in the birth certificate. that one little thing will shatter any credibility in the public. Democrats will just try and play all those people off as crazy "birthers".

reply to post by Rephaim

So you trusted the actual lies of the Bush Admin to have our best interest at heart but you don't trust this admin?

I just don't get it.

This admin has pretty much gave the middle finger to the left in America, because it wants bipartisanship as much as possible. It's willing to sacrifice gay rights, public options in healthcare, revealing the torture photos/videos, etc...

Yet you rail on about how left Obama is.... I just don't get it.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Originally posted by djvexd
The article was pretty good until they had to go an throw in the birth certificate. that one little thing will shatter any credibility in the public. Democrats will just try and play all those people off as crazy "birthers".

It's WND...it is pretty crazy.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Rephaim

 

So you trusted the actual lies of the Bush Admin to have our best interest at heart but you don't trust this admin?

I just don't get it.

This admin has pretty much gave the middle finger to the left in America, because it wants bipartisanship as much as possible. It's willing to sacrificed gay rights, public options in healthcare, revealing the torture photos/videos...

Yet you rail on about how left Obama is.... I just don't get it.

Gave the left the middle fingers? They are investigating the CIA, trying to push a NHS and saying they will abandon bipartisanship in that name...Obama has said he would be if a one term President if only he could pass the "public option." He's tried to pass "cap and trade," he's expanded government spending two-three fold. Yeah, he totally said "screw you guys."

For the record, I think the Obama administration and Bush administration are doing what they think is "right"...too bad they are both wrong and are horrible examples of U.S. government corruption.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by yellowcard]

Yeah, I was trying to say there are way to many VALID points to argue about this administration and its policies without having to use the "birther" card ( not saying you my friend). There are quite a few democrats waking up and seeing what everyone else is seeing , however we destroy any chance of awakening other democrats and Obama supporters by throwing in the BC stuff. As soon as they hear that they shut down any further discourse and call people tin-foil hatters and loons.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by djvexd]

Originally posted by Rephaim


As somebody who reads this forum everyday, I saw the constant bashing of Bush. The calling him a Fascist. Now I believe that he was trying to do good for the country, I to did not like some of things that were pushed through in the name of security. Not that I believed in my heart of hearts that he or Cheney would use it against us. But that whoever came after him would, case in point Barry!
For you on the left, I know you will knock the source of this news article. Typical, but try and knock the content if you can or dare!


www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

sure, men who were part of the intelligence community that would overthrow governments, sell weapons to waring Iran and Iraq at the same time, establish and Al Q and pilot in coc aine by the pallet load have good intentions

Hopefully next time you here those of the left battle undermining civil liberties you will listen? There are a lot more presidents to come, that was the point.

Hey if I wake up in a prison camp one day you can bash me and I will gladly accept it.

Originally posted by Rephaim


As somebody who reads this forum everyday, I saw the constant bashing of Bush. The calling him a Fascist. Now I believe that he was trying to do good for the country, I to did not like some of things that were pushed through in the name of security. Not that I believed in my heart of hearts that he or Cheney would use it against us. But that whoever came after him would, case in point Barry!
For you on the left, I know you will knock the source of this news article. Typical, but try and knock the content if you can or dare!


www.wnd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is why I (sorry) get so ticked at people like you. Without Bush pushing this legislation through post 911 this wouldn't/couldn't happen today. Do you honestly believe there is a difference in Dick Cheney and Obama? They all work for the same team. You didn't stand up for civil liberties when you had the chance because you were so in love with the line that Bush was feeding you (still are obviously) and you want to complain now when its someone you don't like. I don't want to hear it now. You had your chance to complain when it would have meant something.

Well, I didn't like it then, I don't like it now and as someone affected by you crazy Republicans and Democrats with your partisan bickering and faithful bleating of your party line all I have to say is "THANKS". Thanks so much for making this world unsafe for children.

GRRRR

reply to post by Rephaim


Here's the good news: Hope for Health Care Compromise Fades

There are only 3 republicans trying to work with Democrats on the HC Bill. Here is what Enzi of WY said:

"I heard a lot of frustration and anger as I traveled across my home state this last few weeks," said Enzi, who has been targeted by critics for seeking to negotiate on legislation. "People in Wyoming and across the country are anxious about what Washington has in mind. This is big. This is personal. This is one of the most important debates of our lifetime."

Whenever the subject of health care is brought up by legislators they are yelled down by stiff opposition so legislators are naturally starting to run scared. They are seeing the writing on the wall saying they are not going to be reelected if they pursue the issue of health care.

The issue may be revisited in the future but the public has now made it clear that this legislature and this president can not be trusted on the issue.

Earlier reports that Officer Wesley Cheeks Jr. is a police officer were in error. Further investigation has revealed Officer Cheeks is a trained member of the Fairfax County Public Schools trained School Security Officer team.

It was a school security guard. Who cares what he said? What makes you think President Obama is behind the school's security system?

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by Rephaim

 

This admin has pretty much gave the middle finger to the left in America, because it wants bipartisanship as much as possible.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Nothing is more bipartisan than saying "we won" and saying keep quiet and get out of the way when it comes to healthcare

it would seem to me that we should be focusing on the video itself and not all the partisan and biased crap in the so-called "source article".

while the video "content" may not represent the views and or actions of Any entirety ... the same or similar "-type" reports Do seem to be on the rise lately ... from town halls to public speakings all-across the country. ?

whether it be folks who've just had enough with regards the economy, the .gov, Or a combination of the two - That people are pissed off and increasingly voicing their concerns would seem readily apparent.

shame they can't sufficiently unite their chorus.

Q: Why do people carry posters of Obama in the Joker makeup?

A: Because their racism would be too obvious if they depicted him in Black Face.

reply to post by Rephaim

As somebody who reads this forum everyday, I saw the constant bashing of Bush. The calling him a Fascist. Now I believe that he was trying to do good for the country

It's been my experience that those who are quickest to scream fascist, have generally the most vague concepts of what fascism. They just know it's something bad, correlated with Nazism and Communism. Also, I realize I just called a wide swath of people racist. This is fine though, because racism is basic human nature we all share to varying degrees - and It's just as dangerous when it's denied, as when it's embraced. It's best mitigated when the limits of your own racist tendencies are known to you, and can be effectively mitigated. We are not all fascist.

For the record, I have never in my life called George Bush a fascist. A hick, jock, frat-boy, imbecile, religious nutball, puppet, and a few names I can't post without a warning.... but never a fascist.

I also believe that George Bush was more or less acting in what he felt to be the best interest of America. Some of this he accomplished, and it was good... much of it was total failure though. Further, it seems evident to me that Bush wasn't really the one in charge. He was a puppet on a string for Cheney and others in his confidence. His "I'm the decider" outburst was not just a sentiment against public opinion, but of a Freudian admission that he really wasn't in charge. He was trying to convince himself, and perhaps even really thought he was in charge. But somewhere in that thick nugget of his, I think he knew, and the thought festered and ate at him.

Not trying to use this to defend my case, but if you watch the Oliver Stone film W. - while Cheney is talking about using the Iraq War as a means of securing the resources necessary for re-establishing America's dominance in the coming century... you can see a tinge of realization in Bush's eye. Oliver and Richard Dreyfus really did an excellent job with that scene... presenting the case that in a way that fills the room with inspiration, passion, and energy. America NEEDS this to stay strong. Yet also laced with an almost tangible evil and corruption... and the look in Bush's eye revealed that, even though he agreed with it, something about it worried him deeply.

reply to post by djvexd

There are quite a few democrats waking up and seeing what everyone else is seeing

Seeing what everyone else is seeing? I get the distinct impression that this isn't the case. Rather, they're pissed off that he's not having a holiday up there signing bills they've been wanting to pass for the last 8 years but couldn't. Democrats have the house, senate, and presidency. There is no reason why, in their minds, he should be hesitating like this and pandering to bipartisan politics. Kennedy's passing, unless it can be used as an appeal to emotion in the case of health insurance reform, has only made things more difficult.

Personally, I think that while his bite is woefully soft, he's on the right track at least. Any attempt to simply run roughshod over the GOP and conservative party while Dems have unilateral control would spark even more verbose - and perhaps violent outcry from the public. And I still contend that there are likely some elements in the conservative/neo-conservative party which are using viral marketing tactics to inspire a movement against the government to help stall out Obama and demonize the democratic party. Like a martial artist, the weight of the public backlash to the Bush admin is being prodded, nurtured, and channeled into backlash against the Government as a whole... a Government who is now predominantly Democratic. If it doesn't backfire on them, I wouldn't be surprised to see the mid-term elections showcasing some conservative candidates as the "White Horse strident Heroes" who have heard the cry and will work to take America back.

Notice the revolutionary rhetoric, outside of the conspiracy community, started - not after the patriot act, not after the lies of the Iraq war were revealed, not after the torture scandals, the initial bank bailout... nothing. But within the first month of Obama's election, there was talks outside of the conspiracy forums of revolution and secession - spreading from talk radio, the internet, to the television.

Why now? Why only after the Dems control all three branches and have health insurance reform on the table? I suppose the revolutionary sentiment could well be genuine... but you have to admit the timing is awfully suspicious. I think it's more likely that the anger and distrust of government was already there, and some elements in the insurance industry, the conservative party, and others have stirred the pot and turned up the heat.

I think a lot of people are being used, allowing either their anger and frustration to cloud their judgment - or in some cases just loud irrational bigots who can't differentiate between the "People's voice" - and their own voice. Also, and please DO NOT MISINTERPRET OR PROJECT UPON THE FOLLOWING - I think the air of irrational uber-patriotism which seems to have pervaded American society since 9/11 and the Bush Admin is rather akin to the uber-patriotism cultivated in Nazi Germany. Note: I'm not calling anyone Nazi's, or suggesting a Nazi agenda, or any of that other crap. Some contend (according to Wikipedia) that Nationalism and Patriotism are synonyms. I don't believe this, but I feel they are very closely linked. The difference between a nationalist and a patriot, is the same difference between a religion man - and a fundamentalist. Nationalism is what one embraces when they divorce their patriotism from their reason. When they espouse simple dichotomies (love it or leave it) and irrational slander for civil discourse, debate, and mutually beneficial solutions as a means of improving the country.

And I have a bad feeling that "Revolutionary" rhetoric could inspire violence in those uber-patriots. I don't think an actual revolution will spark. But I see a great danger for people to get needlessly hurt and killed as a result. It'll be the second Shays Rebellion, not the second American Revolution. I don't share Thomas Jefferson's sentiment that the lives of a few ignorants and innocents are a justifiable price to pay, watered to the tree, to keep the spark of liberty alive. I think we can keep the spark alive without needless death and injury. I hope, anyhow.

As BH has already pointed out, the man was a school security officer. He's probably used to dealing with kids who get fighting and get out of hand sometimes.

It was wrong of him to object to a mere poster, but he didn't threaten arrest, or to take him off the premises. He just voiced his opinion that the poster was inflammatory and shouldn't be used to provoke a fight.

IMO the right is always looking for signs of "persecution," even when their actions are deliberately aimed at provoking a negative reaction.

The whole thing is blown out of proportion, in an attempt to paint the protesters as innocent victims. What else would you would expect of WND?

reply to post by Sestias

IMO the right is always looking for signs of "persecution," even when their actions are deliberately aimed at provoking a negative reaction.

Sounds like fundamentalist Christians. Hm... Fundie Christians? Religious "Right"? Maybe we have ourselves a behavior pattern connection here.

Thought to be fair, there is a lot of truth behind the sentiment that Conservatives keep the Liberals from destroying this nation apart. Because our government is a complex non-linear system - it's success relies on an interplay between Conservative and Liberal views. Liberals promote change and diversification, allowing for adaptation to changing times and preventing stagnation. Conservatives preserve the structure and trend - keeping things from falling into chaos and ensuring the changes made are directed and purposeful.

This is just a rough guideline, of course, but it's there. It's also there in our brains according to Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia. Additionally, we're born with five (that he's identified) moral foundations of varying disposition to set up in anticipation of experience after birth. They supposedly exist across the human spectrum in various forms. They are Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity.

Liberals score high on Harm/Care, Fairness Reciprocity - but low on the others. They generally don't tend to care much for authority, loyalty, or purity much beyond their "organic all mother natural" kick (in American culture at least). Conservatives on the other hand use all five moral foundations. So I guess it could be claimed that conservatives really are more moral than liberals. However, since their moral foundations are spread more evenly, there is less focus on the morals that liberals use. So a conservative may justify abstinence only programs in schools, fearing the degradation of our youth - because their morals are spread between purity, authority, loyalty as well. It's easier to live with social injustice if other morals are upheld. Whereas liberals tending to focus on the harm/care and Fairness morals are more concerned with the consequences of unwanted teenage pregnancies in the face of failing abstinence only programs.

University of Virginia Source

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic


Actually I was referring more to the folks I talk to everyday at work , family, friends and others. Alot of people who are democrats that I have encountered, even a few on here. I probably should have made a precise point. However I can agree to a point that there definatley is some prodding a stoking of the flames by the right-wing. They see thier chance. However, IMHO and where I tend to lead any discussion I have with others is the people he is appointing to offices surrounding him. Whether or not you say they actually have ANY REAL power ( speaking of the "czars") is neither here nor thier. I don't agree with thier ideologies. Plain and simple. No obfuscation there. I will talk to people and tell people about these appointees. Let them make up thier own minds. I don't bash or hate people who believe in these ideologies. Actually I admire anyone who takes a sttand on issues whther it be leftist, rightist, communist,...etc. As long as they Believe what they are espousing. I may not agree with it and I will challenge it, but I will do so in a normal discourse, not these provoke townhall meetings.

[edit on 29-8-2009 by djvexd]

Whether Bush or Obama, our situation is getting worse and worse. We have to end the left-right paradigm and realize that we have a one party system and the two party thing is a total fake designed to deceive us. Bush and Obama obey the same puppet masters and they happen to be Nazis. Google Nazis in corporate America if you don't think so. Woodrow Wilson let them in, Lyndon Johnson let them kill JFK, and now Obama is handing the country over to these monsters.

reply to post by m khan

Nazis

Define for us, please, the core of the Nazi ideology and how it applies to either Bush or Obama. I don't want to hear anything stupid about death camps, or euthanizeing the elderly, or other scare tactic BS. The philosophies and ideologies - and how the current or previous president is shaped by those philosophies. Frederich Nietzsche's works were highly influential in the establishment of the Nazi parties ideologies, though many of them were modified, cherry picked, or misinterpreted to suit the needs of those in power. Similarly, some of his ideas were endorsed - but not picked up by the Nazi party immediately due to the constraints of the reality in which they sought to effect their ambitions in. In what way does the current or previous administrations intersect with Nietzsche's philosophies?

I actually had a point to make about comparative behaviors, but it seems you brought up the Nazi angle just to demonize Bush and Obama. Colloquially, these day - Nazi is nearly synonymous with Monsters in many people's minds. Aliens, Demons and Nazis are the #1 targets in first person shooters. Sometimes Alien Nazis, or Nazi Demons, or even Nazi Zombies. They are conceptualized as evil incarnate.

But they weren't monsters. They were men, who preformed monstrous acts out of a belief in a misguided ideology. They could kill the "unfit" and "unpure" races so easily because to them - they weren't killing human beings. They were cutting out corruption, pruning the species of dead wood and deformation. They were strengthening their motherland through purity, in a process to help bring about Nietzsche's Übermensch. They thought their actions were righteous and noble.

But they were killing people. Humans. Like you and I.

By calling them Nazis - you bring to mind monstrous atrocities, call them monsters, and suggest that monster is as monster does - that they will visit similar atrocities on us. It is dehumanization in an attempt to slander and debase. While they can be slandered and derided for much, at least let them be judged on their own motivations and actions - as human beings. Not as monsters.


Edit: Another thing. Just because former Nazi party members fleeing from Germany were welcomed into America - does not mean Nazis have infiltrated. Not all the Nazis agreed with Hitler's vision for Germany. Not all the Nazi's supported the death camps. Quite a few deserted. Some continued to do business with Nazi Germany, but didn't support the direction the party was headed. Some brave souls even attempted to assassinate Hitler and other high ranking officials. During and the war, most former Nazis had renounced the Nazi ideologies either in surrender or by seeking exile. For even the most deadpan out there who don't know history beyond what's shown on TV - what of Oscar Schindler and Claus von Stauffenberg?

Nazism is an ideology that can be picked up or dropped if one so chooses. It is not like race or heredity. You are not "Once a Nazi, always a Nazi". People can change.

Would you then suppose that the reason we fixed up old Allied and Nazi bomber and converted them to cargo drop food, fuel, clothes, and candy for children into West Berlin was because we were trying to support our newly found and oppressed Nazi allies? Do you suppose that the reason that German and American aviators and mechanics who, only recently, were gunning each other down without remorse - almost overnight - were laughing and working together to get those planes operational, merely in it because we didn't win the war - we joined their side?

No. They were humans, just like us. They loved their country deeply, and it wasn't until the ruinous end that they saw Nazism hadn't strengthened Germany. It destroyed it.

And if you think that Americans aren't capable of attrocities such as this with their own ideologies - then you have no further to look than Elmira and Andersonville (North and South respectively).



[edit on 29-8-2009 by Lasheic]