Achtung ! It is verboten to look directly at Bush
 

What a pathetic excuse for a president. I mourn for the loss of our democracy ! Just how much can Bush "supporters" overlook ?

I, for one, will be staring directly at him. I hope that my esp can convince him to choke on a pretzel. It worked last time.

This doesn't seem very noteworthy.

I second that.

It's "noteworthy" in that you and FoolThemAll do not seem to see anything
here worth commenting about. You enable the destruction of the checks and
balances that formerly guaranteed the accountability to the people of the executive branch of the federal government.

The reason this IS noteworthy is because it is excessive to an absurd degree. "Parade performers will have security escorts to the bathroom, and they've been ordered not to look directly at President Bush or make any sudden movements while passing the reviewing stand." So we put Bush in danger by LOOKING HIM IN THE EYE?! or GOING TO THE BATHROOM?! This is stupid. This is so far beyond stupid. It is wrong. Bush has just brought himself to the same level of a cocky, untalented celebrity.
Not to get off subject, but did you get my mp, host?

First of all, we're a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Important difference.

Second of all, this is total nonsense. It reminds me of the scene in "The King and I" where Ms. Leonowens is admonished that nobody's head, under ANY circumstances, can be higher than the King's head. The security of this event is nothing short of obscene, as is the cost of the thing; I don't recall the current figure, but it's somewhere in the region of 50,000,000 dollars! OUR TAX MONEY, taken from us by FORCE, is paying for this thing and we're not even allowed to LOOK at the man?

This is a man who is frightened for his life, and with good reason.

Assuming this is true, then I definitely don't see this as noteworthy. It may be excessive, but it's nothing to get worked up about. No one's going to suffer because of it.

Tangent: It reminds me of that scene in Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back when Jay and Bob are on the set of Good Will Hunting 2: Hunting Season. "If you look at Ben or Matt, you will be fired."

No, nobody is physically harmed. But what you have here is a situation in which a man who is SUPPOSED to be SERVING US is exalted above us, held so far above the heads of paeons like us that we are "forbidden to look upon his countenance." This is insane.

I find it unintentionally comical in that regard, and I think Jon Stewart will have a ball with it.

That's about it.

this is purely a security measure... don't let it become an inferiority complex issue. how in the world can you argue that security measures taken on a single day during a single parade at a time of high tension and security concerns is tantamount to disrupting constitutional checks and balances? you can't. at least not without making this fodder for the nonsense in tilted paranoia.

the secret service would only make such a guideline in response to reducing security threats. however much more resources deemed necesary in this inauguration over previous is money well-spent imho. the consequences of spending a few more million to ensure the safety of our commander-in-chief is peanuts compared to the chaos that would follow an assassination at this time in history.

and i thought you conspiracy nuts would welcome anything that would keep cheney out of the white house! ::lol::

What are you expecting, a psychic assasination attempt?
You are choking...you are choking...you are choking...

This isn't about security, this is about the debasing and humiliating exercise of raw power. "You may not look upon the President, Lowly Citizen. Return to your work!"

It's obvious they are afraid of super terrorists like Superman or Cyclops, who can shoot things out of their eyes.

I don't see it as a big deal. It's just silly. More fuel for the fire that is burning up this man's credibility. No point in making something out of it.

It will just make more people laugh at him. Lots of good material here for SNL, Late Show, Daily Show etc. Maybe even that comedienne Ann Coulter might get a joke out of it.


Mr Mephisto

I thinks it just shows the general dislike of the administration(dislike to be kind) by the world and america. The fact that they think they need it says something initself. I find their reasoning a little flawed. "If I do things to make tons people want to kill me, the solution is to hire more security, not for example reevaluate my policies or stop doing what makes them want to kill me"

It's possible to do good things that make people want to kill you. And in those cases, the better answer is more security.

If I was planning to go there, I would be mooning the presidential motorcade, hopefully with some fellow dissatisfied citizens to help. There's nothing like an immature display of disrespect to silently voice your discontent.

i wonder if they've made proper preparations in case of jedi attack.

otherwise...

The problem with that is that these "single" days seem to be growing ever-more frequent and contiguous. I wonder how many barbed wire "free speach zones" they will have this time, and how far away from the actual event they will be.

Why do I feel the tendrils of Fascism wrapping around my ankles.

Irate, we shouldn't suspend our rights for even a single day. Security measures be damned, it is our right to see the goddamned President. He is not better than us or more worthy than us. I would take pleasure at staring him down if I was one of the performers at the Innaug. I'd love to see anyone try and arrest and prosecute me for it too.

The President's innauguration is going to be special. There are plans for large scale protests at the innauguration that the President just won't be able to stop. The protesters are going to go in and be non-descript until Bush is coming past, then they will all turn their backs on him at a signal. Should be good.

You know, everyone knows I don't like Bush.

But I honestly don't think people should make a nuisance of themselves at the inauguration or attempt political stunts. The guy won the election. Maybe it's unfortunate in many of our minds, but win it he did. As such, he's your leader and should at least be allowed to be inaugurated with dignity.

Mr Mephisto

Don't we pay this guy's salary?

Well, if this story that performers can't look him in the eye is true... he isn't inaugurating himself with dignity...

I think this protest is classier than most. Noone is wearing a Bush Mask with a Nazi Uniform or displaying other vulgar or crude messages. They are doing it this way because he refuses to allow dissenting opinions to be around him (see. Free Speech Zones) After winning the election with 51% of the vote he believes he has a mandate and says he "I've earned capital in this election and I'm going to spend it". What does that mean? More of the things that 49% of voting americans disagreed with like dismantling Social Security for instance. That alone is reason enough to not let up on him and make it evident to him that there are many americans who vehemently disagree with his policies.

Turning their backs is not making a nuisance. It is representing the large minority of americans who took part in the 2004 elections.

Fair enough

Again, a fair comment.

True. But there are more Americans who disagree(d) with Kerry's policies.

I don't have anything against protests per se. I just think that

a) The inauguration is a ceremony where the "President of the United States" is inaugurated. Not just President Bush. He's just filling in the shoes for a while.

b) That such a protect will mark an unfortunate precedent. Forever after we'll have the losing party staging silly protests because their candidate lost

c) And finally, I think this is just descending to the level and standards of the rabid right; those who carried out the witch-hunt on Clinton, those who consistenly lie in the media (Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly etc).


Protest all you like. It just seems a little... inappropriate and petty to me. I always felt the liberal left, the Democrats, were above such things.

But then again, I'm an outside observer and many will be annoyed at even these observations and opinions.


Mr Mephisto

Yeah, and no offense but you:
1) Don't have to worry that Social Security may not be there for you 40 years from now
2) Don't have to live in the Atlantic Northeast with acid rain, lakes and stream made lethally toxic with mercury and high pH levels, Emissions from industrial and utility complexes that made our water this way are scheduled to increase threefold as a result of Bush environmental policies
3) Don't have to pay for the deficits that Bush approved for the rest of your life.
Those are just three things off the top of my head, of hundreds, as of immediate importance to my own long term health.

You can sit back and think we should be couth, but, from my perspective we can't afford to not stay on his ass.
Especially at something like this, one of the few times he comes out of his protective shell and we can actually get in his face and show him we exist.

You live in a country where your Head of State actually has to answer to the people for what he does. Our Presidents can hide behind a press secretary who can pick and choose who to answer and give the runaround on any questions.

This seems to be a non-issue. It was my understanding that the majority of the funds for the inauguration ceremony are composed of private and corporate donations. Granted, there currently seems to be a good amount of debate over the legitimacy of whether DC will have to use funds which were originally earmarked for "homeland security" to provide security for the event.



Because the Democrats would never do something like that, right? Uh, wrong. Compare the Repub Nat'l Convention to the Democratic Nat'l Convention. The DNC is the one who set up the "caged protest areas". Both sides do it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0726-04.htm


I believe that there is a time and a place for everything. Protests have a purpose in the political process, but I wouldn't agree with a protest at any presidential inauguration, democrat or republican.

I never said the Dems didn't do it too. I was very disheartened to learn that they were engaging in the same despicable tactics.
Kerry though, in his own events (The Dem Convention was not his), allowed all protesters and hecklers in.

i still remember bush jumping into his limo and speeding past thousands of protestors last investiture, followed by the television flatbed truck---every camera off, all networks having cut to commercial.
i also remember that the security then was marketed in much the same way as this one...

they did a version of the same thing last time out too in the splitting up of protestors--which was said to be about security, but seemed more accurately about enabling television coverage that maintainted the illusion of unanimity by not showing the protestors. it was a kind of stage blocking. it was a kind of triumph of the will.


i look at this security excess as being another unintentional allegory for the inward nature of this administration---on the order of making a near-nomansland out of the area around independence hall for a while after 9/11 (so you could look at the symbol of american democracy but could not get near it) or the covering of the guernica at the un before colin powell's security council dog and pony show in the run-up to bushwar...for all their concern about opinion management, this administration seems singularly good at creating such accidental symbols of what those who do not support them find most disturbing about them.

it must be some kind of repetition compulsion.

This is the same old "You're not American, so why do you care?" argument used against me by the right-wing Bush supporters on this board. At least I can claim to be criticised over the same thing by both sides now!

And anyway, nothing you mention above changes the basis of my argument. I'm not against you protesting. But expect it to be used against you in turn. No matter WHO wins, there will always be a loser. By supporting this kind of protest, you open up yourself and a potential Democract President to the same kind of thing

I never questioned the issues with which you take umbrage. I question the appropriateness of this particular forum (the inauguration) for expressing said protest.

Actually no. The Australian Head of State is the Governor General, appointed by Her Majesty, Queen Elisabeth II of Australia (also known as Queen Elisabeth II of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The Govenor General is not elected, but appointed by the Government. He (or she) can dismiss the elected Government; indeed, this has already happened in recent history prompting a constitutional crisis.

However, MY head of State is the President of Ireland, as I remain an Irish citizen. She is elected by popular vote. Her constitutional powers are noteworthy, but tend to be ceremonial in nature. Her actions are usually taken under the advice of the Government, except where she can refer certain legislation (which she and her legal advisors may believe have potential to be considered unconsitutional) to the Council of State, a august body of statespeople and legal experts who can review the bill in question. This is to avoid said bills (and acts) subsequently being challenged in the Supreme Court of Ireland.

Anyway, I digress...


Agreed. And this is farcical.

Who could imagine George W Bush hosting a press conference like Tony Blair does? Unrehershed, spontaneous, untimed and unaided. He knows the main correspondents personally and answers their questions by name. He often spends longer than planned fielding these questoins and he has no press secretaries to shield him. Now, THAT'S a Statesman.

Mr Mephisto

Isn't she also considered the Queen of Canada as well? Or was that changed at some point?

Anyway, that back-turning protest seems to be a good idea. Any inclination of a sign or naughty t-shirt and you're shuffled off to someplace else miles away. This way seems much easier and imo much stronger that some sign saying "down with Bush" or something like that.

Canada has the same setup that Mr M mentioned. The Queen, Governor General and all.

Meph, I am not criticising you because you care. I just don't think that you grasp the full gravity of Bush's second term. At least not from my perspective and the perspective of those who will take part in this back-turning protest. I am in no way saying that your opinion is worth less than mine or that you shouldn't be a part of the conversation. Just that my experiences and proximity, I believe, changes our perception.

Thanks for clarifying about Australia, but I really did mean more the open form of government that England has. I really wish we had the accountability that Blair is forced to uphold.

Btw, the power that the British Crown still has over Australia, Canada and the ceremonial power in Britain is appalling. It sucks that someone gets to continue to make major decisions like that that affect an entire country just on account of birth. Why do the people of Australia put up with it or even see it as a positive thing?

Clinton's 2nd inauguration cost $29.6 million. Just Flamebait.

-fibber

Surely the measure is for the security of the performers as much as for the president. What do you think those sharp shooters would do if one of the performers gave Mr Bush a long sideways glance and then moved suddenly? A dead baton thrower would mess up the whole thing, don't you think?

Not insane at all, not for the exhaltation of the president, just a sensible measure to allow the security forces to be able to identify more easily those who mean harm.

Because you have an active fantasy life? :p

Once again: are you expecting a psychic attack? I mean, I know Miss Cleo is annoying as hell, but this is abit much, don't you think?
If you really think that a person as well-trained and professional as a Secret Service sniper is gonna "jump the gun" like that, you're insulting the hell out of these people. They're specifically trained to identify and neutralize concrete, actual threats: not angry protestors.

Therein lies the conundrum. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world were lemony gumdrops fall from the sky, and happy furry fuzzy bunnies bounce from carrot patch to carrot patch all the live long day. A person with nefarious intentions is not going to be wearing a sign around his neck that says, "Hey, check me out, I'm a real, concrete threat!!!".

Given the circumstances, I don't think that taking heightened security measures to mitigate risk during this extremely visible and historical event is unreasonable. That said, I have a hard time believing that people are being instructed to "not look at the President." There seems to be alot of overreaction to this claim. It appears that the bandwagon Bush-haters have swallowed this bit hook, line, and sinker without applying the same standards of skepticism that they apply to everything else (i.e. - the threat of Al Qaeda). If it does turn out to be true that people can't look at Bush during the inauguration, then I will be the first to gleefully join in the ridicule.

Happy furry fuzzy bunnies DO bounce from carrot patch to carrot patch all the live long day. And therein lies the problem. People think that it is unrealistic to simply expect the expected.

This doesn't mitigate risk. As for swallowing hook, line, and sinker, we are not alone in this. Who swallowed WMDs and links from al Qaeda and Iraq again?

RD:

It's simple. If I'm an S-S sniper, and I'm looking through my 6-25x Svwarowski riflescope, and I see;

1: A baton-twirler staring at the President: Don't shoot.

2: A protestor yelling at the President: Don't shoot.

3: Someone reaching inside their jacket, while staring intently at the President and bulling through the crowd: Safety Off, Take up the slack, Hold....
3a: Above-mentioned someone taking a pistol out of his jacket: Exhale and fire.

4: A long black object, perhaps with a glint of light above it, in a location where I know none of my fellow agents are stationed: Centre my crosshair on the glint, exhale and fire.

5: Man with a rifle: Centre my crosshair on his chest, exhale and fire.

It's really fairly simple. With the 9-24x scopes the Secret Service uses, you can just about read a watch from 300 meters; threats can be easily identified based upon what they've got in their hands.

Additionally: "they've been ordered not to look directly at President Bush". Just in case you "have a hard time believing that people are being instructed to "not look at the President."

I winked at Clinton once.

Glad I didn't get plugged :D

I'd be more worried about a different sort of "plugging" with Clinton, Lebell...;-)

Well, he did give a little wave back.

And I thought he was just being friendly.

Hrmmm...

you dont think they'd be doing this if it were Kerry or anyone else sworn in? You'd better belive in this day and age post 9/11 it most certainly would.

The only difference would be that the bush supporters would be complaining about it.

I see no problem with it....so what? big damn friggin deal

I'd complain about it one way or another.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out! Hell, maybe you should be heading up security. :)

Although, these 5 simple steps fail to account for other material safety risks besides someone wielding a firearm in plain view (you might want to rethink those simple steps a little).

By the way, it may be true that people are being ordered not to look at the President, and I'll admit that I don't understand the logic behind it. But I'm not going to get all worked up about because one reporter slapped it into an article.

hey, when you see clinton you've got to do the thumb tip thing
saw him on cspan greeting a crowd, sure enough, several people had it whipped out

but no looking at bush? that's pretty minor.
here are some real demands:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour

RD:
Diplomatic security ( from the sharpshooters perspective, anyway ) is simple. Hard, yes; that kind of precision observation and engagement is damned hard. But the concept is simple: identify threats by verifying that they are behaving in a concretely threatening manner, and neutralize them.

And that's fair enough.

That's a whole new thread right there! Australia had a referendum to become a republic and it failed to pass. The reason was not that most Australians support the monarchy (they don't), but that the Government, led by John Howard who is a monarchist, offered the people a poor choice. The President wasn't to be elected by the people, but appointed by the parliament; ie, the Government. In other words, just more "jobs for the boys" kind of bullshit that permeates Australian politics. If Labor ever get into power they've promised another referendum on a directly elected president. And that will most definitely pass.

Mr Mephisto

Ummm...how is the marchers not looking at the President destroying the checks and balances of government?

I'd like to point out that they are not there to look at the President, they are there to march. Now remember, the only people being told to pay attention to what they're doing is the marchers. People coming out to watch can look at whomever they want.

Have you ever seen the results of an entire marching band being distracted? I have, at a parade where a woman along the parade line flashed the band. It was priceless....dropped instruments, almost no semblance of order, (the girls tried to keep going, the boys stopped and drooled, and a bunch of them ended up on the ground from tripping) it completely stopped the parade until order was restored (and the woman was arrested).

Dude, the crowd can look at him all they want to.

All this is is the Secret Service telling people that are ACTUALLY MARCHING to keep their minds on what they are doing. It's no different than an "eyes front" order in the military.

Remember that woman who hiked up her shirt and tried to get Clinton to sign her impressively filled bra? He ran away, and the SS arrested her.

Yes it is different. They're not in the military.

And it's being explained as a security measure, not an aesthetic one.

Where did I last hear of civilians marching in such pristine and military fashion at a large political rally? Oh yeah, that's right.

It was Nuremberg.




Mr Mephisto

Its a wonder that the president goes outside at all. I dont think America has ever had a more paranoid leader.

I do agree it's pretty crazy, but can you diasgree with this environment.

There were a lot of people off by the elections this year, some to the point that they want to move our of country because Kerry didn't win.

It only takes one person with a gun out there to think he will be a hero to all these disenfranchised people.

Let me say this guys, and I'm not pointing a finger at anyone on the board.

Sometimes the person pointing out the zealot, is the zealot himself.




Also on another note, it's Parade Performers guys not the spectators. THe performers are paid, and they follow the rules of their employers. So really no rights are being taken away.

Nicely put.

Well, I called for this inauguration to pass off peacefully. I don't agree that there should be large protests at all.

But I do believe that "ordering" them not to look directly at President Bush is just silly.

If we accept that these people are employees (as you state), then they should be known to the organizers. SIGNIFICANT background checks will have been made, before they are let take part in this inauguration. In other words, the likelihood of their being an assassin is low. And more importantly, their being ordered to not look at the President is unlikely to increase his safety.

And sometimes making a pithy soundbite doesn't really mean anything. I believe this "order" is stupid. I don't see how it improves safety and I think it only opens up the Administration for more ridicule. It's just silly and I don't know why many of you are defending it.


Mr Mephisto

Has silly as this is, it's just a pathetic attempt to attack Bush. This is an erosion of our civil liberties and nullifying the constitutional checks and balances, in what reality?!

I wholeheartedly agree, this makes me feel like i'm watching Equilibrium to a certain point for such a draconian rule.

Concerning what you said about Employees Mr. M, yeah I agree about the background check but there are lots of instances where even a thorough check doesn't find out everything.

Are you really being paranoid if people are actually trying to kill you?

Can you think of a higher value target for Al Queda to go after? How about what's left of the Fedayeen Saddam?

He's not being paranoid. A lot of America's enemies would dearly love to harm him. And all peace-loving people better HOPE he stays in excellent health, because God forbid something happens to him... and the Inauguration is a HUGE target.

I for one am GLAD that they're going for maximum security. Better to be heavy handed and keep something bad from happening than to go too light on security and allow something bad to happen. Plus, given that the International ANSWER people are supposed to be out in force, and that they are a very thinly disguised front for America's enemies, it's not paranoia, it's prudence.

You DO realize that the people marching are from all over the US, and that it's really not possible to screen the thousands of people involved, right? Plus, what are they going to do, say that an invited high-school band can't attend because there's the odd communist or anarchist or black bloc or DemocraticUnderground.com poster there? Look at all the assmunch highschool students that supported Kerry...Are they keeping all of them out?

As for the protests, International ANSWER has an area where they are in control of seating. They're rabidly anti-Bush, and the organization has extensive ties to Saddam Hussein's former regime and to those fun-loving peaceniks the Palestinians. I'd say that, if anything, the Secret Service has been RESTRAINED in it's security procedures. If it was me, I'd have that area surrounded by tanks and APCs and loaded for bear.

Yes I agree security should be tight. No one is disputing that.

But orders not to look at the President?

Well, that will certainly protect him from those killer laser eyes Al Queda scientists have developed.

LOL


Mr Mephisto

Then the kindest thing I can say to you is that you must not get out much. BTW, the Nurenburg rallies? Those were only attended by military and paramilitary groups like the SS, SA, and HJ.

Please feel free to continue with your "Bush=Hitler" analogies, though. It's good to know who we are dealing with.

Actually no. They were attended by tens of thousands of civilians and party members as well. Oh, and lots of "performers"... You need to brush up on your history a bit.

Well, it was actually meant as a sartirical comment. I don't equate Bush with Hitler. I do equate his most paranoid security personnel with... well, I don't know; other paranoid security presonnel?


Mr Mephisto

That was you? Good job. Better luck next time.

Sorry, you're wrong. They were set up as a showcase of various arms of the State. If you weren't part of the State organism, you didn't get to go. And virtually ALL of the State organism was either military or paramilitary in organization and design. For example, the HJ, while technically a group for children, ran military training programs, kind of like JROTC, except a lot harder. Even groups like the German version of the Teamsters (the NSKK) were paramilitary, to the point that they issued them sidearms with a NSKK logo on them.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Party members attended. Thousands of them. Hundreds of thousands of them. By 1938 nearly a million members of the party (not Government employees or members of the military or paramilitary organisations) travelled to attend the week long events.

How did the League of German Girls or the German Labor Front (for example) exist as "various arms of the State"?

You may have had to be a member of the SS to march in the SS march... but that's kind obvious, eh?

Let me quote Adolph Hitler himself.

Speech by Hitler, 6 September 1937.

You may want to read Alan Bullocks Hitler, A Study in Tyranny or the rather more recent The Third Reich - A New History by Michel Burleigh. I can also recommend The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard J. Evans. This latter title is the first of a planned 3 volumen history.

So, in summary, I'm not comparing Bush to Hitler. I'm not even comparing the inauguration to the Nuremberg rallies. I simply made a satirical comment. But I'm tired of you posting untruths as if they were fact and no one correcting you. To state that "If you weren't part of the State organism, you didn't get to go." is just wrong. It's untrue. :)


Mr Mephisto

Ummm...dude.....the Party WAS the State. And yes, even the League of German Girls was organized along paramilitary lines, and routinely marched in formation. Which makes sense, since they were part of the HitlerJugend. You remember the HitlerJugend, right? No paramilitary basis there, right?

Here's a regimental guidon from the League of German Girls: http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/images/d/de_bdmuw.gif

Here's a company guidon for the League of German Girls:
http://atlasgeo.span.ch/fotw/images/d/de_bdmgw.gif

And here's a pic of them meeting with Hitler...IN UNIFORM.
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/nyouth/girls.gif

As for Organization Todt and similar groups, fer chrissakes, they even went as far as to have their own FLAGS made. Even the railway employees were issued military-style uniforms.

Please feel free to post a pic of a 1 May rally where ANY part of the people are in civilian "streetclothes". Just one.

Not before 1934 it wasn't. And the first rally took place in 1927.

Which doesn't make them part of the "part of the state organism".

They were political rallies. They were propaganda exercises. Claiming that the League of German Girls marched in uniform does not make them "part of the state organism".

So what? The fact that they wore uniforms would mean, in your reasoning, that they were part of the state, when in fact they were just employees.

Mr Mephisto

http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics4/91080.gif

Mr Mephisto

the president has nothin to fear
honesty is the only thing to be feared

It's a real shame you didn't post the caption with that. The caption reads: "Hitler at Nazi party rally, Nuremberg, Germany, circa 1928 (NWDNS-242-HAP-1928(46)) from NAIL"

Here's a link to the page you got the photo from:
http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2T...erg-pics1.html

The important phrase is "circa 1928"...

You posted a picture of Hitler in Nuremberg all right, but not at a 1 May rally, and years before he rose to power. Are you trying to be disingenuous, or did you simply not know the difference?

WTF are you talking about?

Now you're trying to put a contemporaneous condition upon your (incorrect) statement that no civilians were allowed at the Nurember rallies?

How about this one then?

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/photos/p03/p9/p03966.gif
The caption reads "Flag-bearing members of the Nazi party paraded through Nuremberg during the 1935 Reich's Party Day ("Parteitag") celebrations. Nazi propaganda experts designed the spectacular event to express German unity under Hitler's leadership."

Or how about this one?

http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/photos/p03/p1/p03108.gif
This was taken at the fourth Nazi Party Day at Nuremberg.

Or then there's this one.
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/photos/p01/p9/p01924.gif
The date for this picture is unknown, but it reported as being from a party rally at Nuremberg.


Mr Mephisto

Your pics are showing them marching through the city of Nuremberg on their WAY to the rally (hence the apartment buildings, et cetera), NOT the rally itself. No, they didn't evacuate the city of Nuremberg prior to the 1 May rallies, but the parade grounds are a separate and distinct location, and your pictures are not showing it. If you'd ever been there, you'd know what I'm talking about. In order to get into the actual parade grounds (you know, that big field with all the mammoth buildings that you keep seeing the Swastika being blown up in the old newsreels) where the 1 May rallies were actually held, you had to be in the Party or it's sub-organizations, which were organized on a military or paramilitary structure.

It's kind of like the circus coming to town...you can watch them march from the railhead to the venue, but that doesn't mean you've actually been to the circus.

All you're doing is obfuscating.

you might want to find a copy of Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will", which documents one of the 1 May rallies. It'll give you a much better idea of what went on there.

Those were essentially campaign rallies. There's a considerable difference between a campaign rally and a 1 May rally.

So you're saying that the HJ wasn't part and parcel of the German State? Or that it wasn't a paramilitary organization?


Yup, and people in the Heer were just employees too, right? I think you don't understand just how deeply militarized and regimented the Nazis made Germany.

Right....

First you had to be part of the "state organism"
Then being a party member was sufficient
Then wearing a uniform made you part of the state
Then it was only rallies after he came to power
Then it was rallies held on 1 May (the Nuremberg rallies were actually held in September)*
Then it was only those actually in the stadium.

And I'm obfuscating?

*
http://www.trekearth.com/gallery/Eur...hoto127674.htm
More references available upon request.

The only mention I can find of any rally in May was in Berlin in 1939, and that was an original caption a Nazi propaganda picture.


Mr Mephisto

PS - I'm no longer going to give this topic any further attention.

This "zealot" respectfully requests that you both take your "Nuremberg debate"
somewhere else.

The original intent of this thread is to continue to expose the mediocrity of the current inhabitant of the white house, and of his administration. Bush himself
could announce that he is grateful for the lengths that the security apparatus
will go to in an effort to protect him, but that ordering parade participants
"not to look directly at him", is excessive and divisive.

Bush won't do that, though. He sees nothing amiss now, just as he pretended
that it was not out of the ordinary to speak only at campaign appearances
populated by carefully pre-screened, ticket holding, loyalty oath taking, audiences.

If being a "zealot" means regarding Bush and his conduct of office with a
combination of outrage, incredulity, and disgust, is not to be confused with
being a patriot, are true patriots, people who give their mostly unquestioning
support to this uncurious, inarticulate, incompetent, northeastern born and educated elitist, with an over emphasized Texas drawl and a feigned "born again" image that earns him 20 million extra votes ?

If a "zealot" is someone who can recognize a counterfeit phony when he
sees one, I am a "zealot". I also weep for the dead and wounded around
the world as a result of the faith and support invested in the "pretender".
Ignore all of the harm that your fool still has left to do. Explain it away,
denounce me for making you do it. Everything he steals or degrades in terms of life, liberty, and the strength and influence of this nation, impacts all of
us. You are slower to see what is so obvious to me. The damage will continue
to escalate until you withdraw your support from your misguided choice of
Bush as leader of the free world. It makes me wonder how low your regard is of youselves and of your country to persuade you to support this faker
through two elections.

Duly noted. Apologies for the thread hijack. I get carried away sometimes when addressing blatant mistruths. :)

Agreed 100%. I'm all for security, but that final order was just a little OTT.

To be fair, was Clinton any different? I honestly don't know. I have heard it said that he held a lot more press conferences, and didn't impose "no free speech" zones. But did he engage in unprepared Q&A sessions?

We've moved on from silly and paranoid "security measures" to general criticism of Bush's dealings with the media.

Mr Mephisto

Well, you two kept it fairly respectful, and for that I'm grateful.

Well, who better to assess the contrast between free speech rights during
the Clinton years, compared to today, than one of Cinton's staunchest political opponents, former republican congressman Bob Barr, of the Clinton
impeachment trial fame.................
IMO, a true test of respect for our constitution's system of checks and balances by any president is appointments made to the supreme court.
Here is some info on the two supreme court justices appointed by Clinton:
Compare the two Clinton appointments to the same publication's write up
of Bush Sr. appointees:

Yes they certainly wrote more about the 1st two.

Which is fortunate because I do, in fact, base my opinions of public officials on the msn encyclopedia.

I used to go by the fibber Encyclopedia but I was told, quite plainly, that the entry proclaiming fibber the greatest lover in the world was incorrect.

Of course the heading for Microsoft's windows is bigger and more glowing than either of the Clinton appointees.

Therefore I can only insist that we remove any of those four and replace them with our fav OS.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...0/Windows.html

-fibber

From my position, that happened not because I had any desire to be civil to Mephisto, but rather because I don't care to be banned.

Now that's just plain nasty and petty. And here was I thinking you were polite. Go figure.

I try to be civil to everyone, even if I disagree with them.

Mr Mephisto