Quote:
Originally posted by Astrocloud
What names? If I offend you I appologize. I called Bush a name or two but I have not directed any names at you.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blface.htm
It's not my refusal to believe. It's their expressed tactic to "save babies".
Finally, I noticed that you once again are trying to change the subject when a topic isn't going the way you want.
Give someone the benefit of the doubt and just read the facts as they are. Don't give it your usual "Bush can do no wrong" spin and just admit that Bush is crossing the line in prohibiting free speech.
|
Rather than debate your obvious name calling, let's focus on your post.
The Supreme Court language explicitly states "through force or the threat of force" which is absolutely consistent with my posts.
I have not attempted to change the subject in the least. I pointed to other established instances where protesters are told where they can exercise their freedom of speech rights. If you'd like another one, how about entering a court room where a trial is in progress? Certainly you could not begin shouting "No blood for oil" or the like without being forced to leave or put in jail.
I have in many cases said that Bush is wrong, so I have no "Bush can do no wrong" mantra. How many times have you pointed to something Bush did right?
I have simply read the facts as they are. That reading lead me to break it down into the fact that protesters are being told where they can protest. From that fact I equated the action to other well known cases where the same action was taken. I have remained absolutely loyal to the subject, but because it doesn't agree with your opinions you seem to think I have violated the "rules" of the discussion.