PDA

View Full Version : Nice going, Secret Service and Cheney



Papa'sLiver
10-04-2006, 10:23 PM
I read some article today how a guy and his young son saw Cheney at a mall or something, shaking hands and talking to people. He walked up to Cheney, staying a couple or three feet away and told him his iraq policy was reprehensible, then walked away. Later, as he's walking back near the same area, the secret service walks up to him asks if he "attacked the Vice President" (or they may have used the world "assaulted"). The man says "no", but they handcuff him and take him to jail anyway.

I wonder if they checked his like 7 year old son for dynamite.

Truly amazing.

I'll see if I can find the link to the article again.

brianm
10-04-2006, 11:59 PM
I googled and the full story can be read here.

www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4436043

The man is suing the agent, not Cheney. And frankly, in this day and age I think the Secret Service needs to be overly cautious with who approaches the VP and President.

From what I read the man approached with his son, heckled Cheney and then left. He returned a second time with another son and that's when he was arrested.

I say job well done Secret Service. Their job is to protect and when the man came back a second time it would have made me think he was up to no good.

I'm not fond (understatement) of the current administration, but there are constant threats on their lives. IMO the Secret Service did their job. The man can make more of a statement with his vote. He should also consider the bad example he set for his children.

Haggis
10-05-2006, 12:04 AM
It sounds to me like somebody is looking for his 15 minutes of fame.

Shadow_Ferret
10-05-2006, 12:06 AM
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help. Help. I'm being repressed."

:rolleyes:

Papa'sLiver
10-05-2006, 01:24 AM
Ah, that was more about the story than i had previously seen.

I stand corrected.

SC Harrison
10-05-2006, 02:21 AM
Fantastic.

An unarmed man gives Cheney a piece of his mind while the VP is gladhanding in the mall, and he gets arrested and has to go to court before he is finally exonerated.

Cheney shoots a man in the face with a shotgun and doesn't even have to speak with local law enforcement in person.

Bravo, American Justice System. (Slow, sarcastic clapping sequence)

Jean Marie
10-05-2006, 03:40 AM
SC, you must have missed Papa's post about standing corrected :) He read the entire article. The Secret Service did their job, properly.

robeiae
10-05-2006, 03:43 AM
From the article:


In the lawsuit, Howards claims Reichle violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. "It's such a blatant attempt to suppress a right to free speech. Such a traumatic event for my son, I couldn't just let it pass," Howards told the Associated Press Monday night, before the suit was filed...

The lawsuit asks for money for attorneys fees and damages that include loss of enjoyment of life.

What a schmuck.

maestrowork
10-05-2006, 04:14 AM
I'm surprised they let someone get so close to the VP... not in these days of high security alert...

AS for the guy... blah blah blah. "Loss of enjoyment of life"?

robeiae
10-05-2006, 04:19 AM
AS for the guy... blah blah blah. "Loss of enjoyment of life"?Sounds like an excellent way to sue an ex-wife...or a current one!

:roll:

BradyH1861
10-05-2006, 04:19 AM
Too funny!

SC Harrison
10-05-2006, 05:35 AM
SC, you must have missed Papa's post about standing corrected :) He read the entire article. The Secret Service did their job, properly.

He returned to the spot about ten minutes later with another son, and that's when Secret Service agent Virgil Reichle handcuffed and arrested Howards for assaulting the vice president.

The charge was later reduced to harassment, then dismissed in Eagle County Court a month later.

I read the entire article too, JM. The Secret Service did a great job, if "punishing" outspoken critics is their job. They also did a great job on the accidental shooting incident, if shielding VIPs from local law enforcement is their job.

Are those their jobs?

robeiae
10-05-2006, 05:44 AM
He returned to the spot about ten minutes later with another son, and that's when Secret Service agent Virgil Reichle handcuffed and arrested Howards for assaulting the vice president.

The charge was later reduced to harassment, then dismissed in Eagle County Court a month later.

I read the entire article too, JM. The Secret Service did a great job, if "punishing" outspoken critics is their job. They also did a great job on the accidental shooting incident, if shielding VIPs from local law enforcement is their job.

Are those their jobs?That article is obviously only one side of the story, Steve. You're passing judgement based on that, alone. And regardless, the guy filed a lawsuit for monetary damages based on "Loss of enjoyment of life." Come on. That should be a major red flag that he's less than trustworthy.

Unique
10-05-2006, 05:46 AM
That article is obviously only one side of the story, Steve. You're passing judgement based on that, alone. And regardless, the guy filed a lawsuit for monetary damages based on "Loss of enjoyment of life." Come on. That should be a major red flag that he's less than trustworthy.

Or that he doesn't have a very good lawyer

robeiae
10-05-2006, 05:48 AM
There are no good lawyers, only skilled and unskilled ones.

Oh, wait...there are some good ones, but they're at the bottom of the ocean...

Jean Marie
10-05-2006, 05:52 AM
Steve, the guy said he touched Cheney's arm or shoulder, the first time. That was along w/ exercising his right of free speech. He left. He returned. Why? I'm guessing the Secret Service wanted to know, too. Their job is to protect the VP. How do they know this guy isn't a nutjob who didn't leave to get a gun? They're in an open area, remember? He'd already approached the VP and made physical contact w/ him, probably not a good idea since it more than likely was not for a photo op.

Again, they were doing their job. Btw, it has nothing to do w/ Cheney's hunting accident.

SC Harrison
10-05-2006, 07:02 AM
Steve, the guy said he touched Cheney's arm or shoulder, the first time. That was along w/ exercising his right of free speech. He left. He returned. Why? I'm guessing the Secret Service wanted to know, too. Their job is to protect the VP. How do they know this guy isn't a nutjob who didn't leave to get a gun? They're in an open area, remember? He'd already approached the VP and made physical contact w/ him, probably not a good idea since it more than likely was not for a photo op.

Again, they were doing their job. Btw, it has nothing to do w/ Cheney's hunting accident.

I have no problem with them getting this guy away from the VP, or even taking some time to check him out afterwards. But he was arrested for assault and hauled off to jail. Just like some others (lady with t-shirt) who have had the audacity to speak out in the presence of royalty.

The reason I brought up the shooting incident was to show that the SS is there to protect more than just the physical safety of their charges, they also shield them from "problems". This guy was an embarassment, not a threat. When they determined this, they should have let him go. By dropping him off at the jail with a suggestion he be charged with harassment, they went outside the bounds of protection, and into the realm of payback.

SC Harrison
10-05-2006, 07:12 AM
That article is obviously only one side of the story, Steve. You're passing judgement based on that, alone. And regardless, the guy filed a lawsuit for monetary damages based on "Loss of enjoyment of life." Come on. That should be a major red flag that he's less than trustworthy.

And you're passing judgment on him because he filed a lawsuit.

Cripes, man. He was handcuffed in a mall, right in front of one of his sons, while the other was taking a piano lesson.

I guess he should have kept his mouth shut, huh?

brianm
10-05-2006, 07:27 AM
Quote:

And you're passing judgment on him because he filed a lawsuit.

Cripes, man. He was handcuffed in a mall, right in front of one of his sons, while the other was taking a piano lesson.

I guess he should have kept his mouth shut, huh?

He already made his point the first time. And, yes, he should have kept his mouth shut in front of his children. What kind of example is he showing them? That heckling solves problems? If he wanted to go heckle the VP, then he should have done it without the children in tow.

Coming back a second time indicates he's probably going to do more and perhaps this time get physical or worse. He deserved to get arrested and he deserves to make a fool of himself in court. Now he will have shown his children that if yelling and heckling doesn't work, you sue people for whatever silly, dumb reason you can come up with.

Regardless of your feelings about this administration, they are the VP and President of the United States of America. I may not agree with them, nor care for them, but I will respect the office and I will teach my children to respect the office. I will also teach them that by voting and becoming involved is the way to make changes. Not heckling and suing.

robeiae
10-05-2006, 07:47 AM
And you're passing judgment on him because he filed a lawsuit.

Cripes, man. He was handcuffed in a mall, right in front of one of his sons, while the other was taking a piano lesson.

I guess he should have kept his mouth shut, huh?
Damn straight I'm passing judgment because of the lawsuit, based on the specifics of that lawsuit.

The lawsuit is a fact. Your position is based on his version of events. That's the difference.

britwrit
10-05-2006, 02:26 PM
But if that had been Gore eight years ago and the guy had been complaining about Clinton, Fox News would have licked this up with a spoon.

johnnysannie
10-05-2006, 03:56 PM
To arrest any citizen - no matter what lawsuits the individual filed after the fact - and remove him in the presence of his child in a public mall for speaking his beliefs (guaranteed to all Americans under that little thing called The Constitution) is blatantly wrong. Worse, it's symptomatic of the current administration which is fast whittling away the freedoms Americans have held dear for more than two centuries.

The Bush Administration resembles a dictatorship much more than it does the presidency of a democracy.

What concerns me is how many of my fellow Americans think that the guy who voiced his opinion on the Iraq debacle is the one at fault.

Sheesh!

Shadow_Ferret
10-05-2006, 04:06 PM
I guess he should have kept his mouth shut, huh?

Exactly. I'm glad you finally understand.

His side of things:
He walked up quietly and said, "Excuse me, Mr. Vice President, sir, but I think your administration is doing a less than perfect job."
Walks away. Returns a few minutes later, smiling, with his child. And the Secret Service strong arm him off to jail.

The Secret Service side of things:
Strange, aggitated man storms up to the vice president and grabs his elbow: "You stink! You and Bush are war criminals! This country is the laughing stock of the world because of your evil criminal actions!"

Storms off only to return moments later, angry, gesturing wildly and pointing at the Vice President. Situation secured. Potential threat removed. Vice President safe.

SC Harrison
10-05-2006, 04:34 PM
Exactly. I'm glad you finally understand.

His side of things:
He walked up quietly and said, "Excuse me, Mr. Vice President, sir, but I think your administration is doing a less than perfect job."
Walks away. Returns a few minutes later, smiling, with his child. And the Secret Service strong arm him off to jail.

The Secret Service side of things:
Strange, aggitated man storms up to the vice president and grabs his elbow: "You stink! You and Bush are war criminals! This country is the laughing stock of the world because of your evil criminal actions!"

Storms off only to return moments later, angry, gesturing wildly and pointing at the Vice President. Situation secured. Potential threat removed. Vice President safe.

Where did you get this statement, SF? Show me a link, because every story I've found so far has him making a statement to the VP in a normal tone of voice.

The heightened voices, if there were any, seem to have come from the confrontation between him and agent Reichle when he returned to the area.

Now it's my turn to theorize:

After Howard makes his comment to Cheney and walks away, the Secret Service realize the VP is going to ream their butts later. When Howard approaches the area again, Reichle confronts him and starts chewing on his @$$. Harsh words are exchanged, and Howard ends up in cuffs.

The agents made a mistake by not being prescient enough to prevent an embarassing comment, then they punished the guy to make things right with the big guy.

As I said before, the end result of this seems to be an unnecessary detention. If Howard was an actual threat, he would have remained in Federal custody, instead of being dropped off at the local jail. They knew they couldn't make any charges stick, but they couldn't just let the guy get away scot-free after embarassing the VP.

robeiae
10-05-2006, 05:21 PM
Where did you get this statement, SF? Show me a link, because every story I've found so far has him making a statement to the VP in a normal tone of voice.
Every story out there is based on nothing but his version of events. To whit:

There has been no specific comments about this case from the Secret Service or the White House.
They are saying it's litigation, so they won't respond at this time, which is the proper way to handle the case.

And this incident took place in June. Sure did take some time for it to become public. That wouldn't have anything to do with the lawsuit seeking damages for "loss of enjoyment of life," would it?

I may seem cynical, but those of you accepting this story at face value certainly seem naive.

Bill Clinton had an engagement to promote his new book at my favorite indy bookstore here in Miami when it was released. Several people (two, actually) I know went to the event with the expressed intent to "say something to him" (I told them that I thought they were acting like idiots). The Secret Service didn't let them anywhere Clinton and escorted them off the property. Yes, I was there. They didn't actually do anything, didn't say anything, but I think the Secret Service could tell they were antagonistic. I'm certain if either had managed to place a hand on Clinton, they would have taken a ride. All that said, neither believed they had lost their right to free speech, and I don't believe they did, either.

And anyway you slice it, putting your hand on someone requires an invitation. End of story. If I walked up to Hilary Clinton while she was having dinner, grabbed her arm and told her what I thought of her, where do you suppose I would be heading in the next few minutes? In this day and age, it is absolutely ludicrous to expect acts like these to go unnoticed. And as had been said and as the guy admits, he came back. Now it all may have been innocuous, but if you guys think the Secret Service is goung to take that risk, you're clueless. Sorry.

This has zero to do with Bush or his policies--the Secret Service has been running their own show for quite some time and does what it determines to be the safest course of action. You guys realize that the Secret Service agent who made the arrestmight have voted against Bush, right? He might despise both Bush and Cheney. He's not a political appointee.

But it is unfortunately clear here that ideological blinders are hard to remove. I suggest trying harder.

Inkdaub
10-05-2006, 05:27 PM
I don't care much of a dumbass this guy is, he should be allowed to say anything he wants to the VP outside of a threat and not be arrested. Heckling is not a crime. Even if you're doing it for publicity or whatever reason.

robeiae
10-05-2006, 05:30 PM
I don't care much of a dumbass this guy is, he should be allowed to say anything he wants to the VP outside of a threat and not be arrested. Heckling is not a crime. Even if you're doing it for publicity or whatever reason.Again, at this point we don't know with any degree of certainty what he did actually say or what he did actually do.

johnnysannie
10-05-2006, 05:43 PM
Again, at this point we don't know with any degree of certainty what he did actually say or what he did actually do.


No but we do know that our freedoms - including freedom of speech - are being eroded and will be lost if a complacent America doesn't wake up.

I can't vouch for what happened with this guy because I wasn't there. I have, however, been on a university campus where Bush was to appear and protestors who were nothing but holding up signs against the Iraq action were removed rather forcibly by the Secret Service. None were even near Bush but they were removed and those who didn't want to leave were arrested. This is not speculation but reality.

Shadow_Ferret
10-05-2006, 05:59 PM
Where did you get this statement, SF? Show me a link, because every story I've found so far has him making a statement to the VP in a normal tone of voice.

I MADE IT UP! It's called parody.Sheesh. :rolleyes:

The secret service did their job. There's no loss of freedom here. It's not indicative of this administration's policies. It is how the secret service functions. This guy just wants to be a jag and get media attention hoping he'll somehow embarrass Cheney.

I have no partisan bias in this issue as some of you seem to. I have no personal vendetta against of Cheney as some of you seem to. I am looking at this strictly as a secret service issue where they are protecting their charge. I'd say they did the right thing no matter who they were guarding, be it Gore, or Mondale, or even Agnew.

They did their job and they did the right thing.

SC Harrison
10-05-2006, 06:00 PM
And this incident took place in June. Sure did take some time for it to become public. That wouldn't have anything to do with the lawsuit seeking damages for "loss of enjoyment of life," would it?



Yep, it's public because of the lawsuit. You know why? Because being detained by officials is no longer newsworthy. Think about that.

And this may be deemed a poor debate tactic, but your post has some of the most condescending statements I've seen in a while. You're too eloquent at debate to resort to that kind of approach, so please try harder. :)

SC Harrison
10-05-2006, 06:06 PM
I MADE IT UP! It's called parody.Sheesh. :rolleyes:



I knew you made it up, SF. :)

I just wanted to make sure others reading this thread didn't mistake it for reality, and come away thinking this guy was a raving lunatic.

Shadow_Ferret
10-05-2006, 06:08 PM
I knew you made it up, SF. :)

I just wanted to make sure others reading this thread didn't mistake it for reality, and come away thinking this guy was a raving lunatic.

Maybe not raving....

robeiae
10-05-2006, 06:39 PM
No but we do know that our freedoms - including freedom of speech - are being eroded and will be lost if a complacent America doesn't wake up.We're going to disagree, here. Hard.

History is clear, I think..many times in the past (and present, I will grant), there have been curtailments of liberties like Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and the like. Also, there is line out there that keeps moving, with regard to what constitutes assualt, slander, and the like. Some personal insults have even been taken to be or argued to be illegal at face value and uttering them is grounds to claim a civil rights violation. And some assemblies have been argued to be of the same nature. Plus, there is always the question of public safety. All that said, I don't see anything in the present day that would lead me to believe a real potential exists for any of these personal liberties to be lost. The one exception here would be that garbage Campaign Finance Reform legislation championed by McCain.

I see criticisms of sitting officials on a daily basis. Some are editorials, some are outright gossip and innuendo, some are comedy schtick. Freedom of Speech is rampant in its use, IMO. And much of it crosses the line of good taste and legitimate criticism, at least to me. Of course, much of it does not, as well.

In this particular case, I repeat--the guy had no right, under any circumstances, to put his hand or hands on Cheney. I've looked and looked, but I can't find anything in the Constitution, BoR, or the body of Supreme Court decisions that would extend the Freedom of Speech to the Freedom to touch. And again, we don't actually know what he said. I can think of quite a few things that he could have said to lead to the treatment he recieved. The presence of his son is absolutely irrelevent in this regard.

Once again, the loss of freedoms I see are a product of institutionalized and arbitrary government action in the realm of social services and the like. The one big addition here is, of course, Supreme Court decisions that blatantly disregard the fundamental purposes of the Constitution--*cough..eminent domain...cough*.

robeiae
10-05-2006, 06:47 PM
Yep, it's public because of the lawsuit. You know why? Because being detained by officials is no longer newsworthy. Think about that.The Cindy Sheehan fiasco suggests otherwise.


And this may be deemed a poor debate tactic, but your post has some of the most condescending statements I've seen in a while. You're too eloquent at debate to resort to that kind of approach, so please try harder. :)Sorry Steve, but I really can't seem to wrap my head around your position on this case. Without knowing the facts, you can't jump to the conclusion you are making. You just can't. And even if the facts are exactly as the guy claims, the idea that the action is a product of the current administration's agenda/policy is far from a slam-dunk. The Secret Service operates on some basic guidelines--at the very least, you'd need to show that their actions here were uncharacterisitc in comparison to actions in the past, while protecting different people whose safety they were responsible for. Okay? :)

johnnysannie
10-05-2006, 07:26 PM
We're going to disagree, here. Hard.
[/I]


Yes, that's very clear. And - to me - the very right to have dissention, to be able to have different opinions is part of the very rights that are being eroded.

Because this is the United States of America, we should be able to disagree and debate but no one should have their right to free speech (or any other right) removed.

I'm stubborn; it appears that you are as stubborn so let's agree to disagree!

robeiae
10-05-2006, 07:39 PM
I'm stubborn; it appears that you are as stubborn so let's agree to disagree!I'm content to do so...but I'd much rather argue about it, ad nauseum. :D

Shadow_Ferret
10-05-2006, 08:00 PM
Because this is the United States of America, we should be able to disagree and debate but no one should have their right to free speech (or any other right) removed.



Who is having their free speech rights removed? There have ALWAYS been limits on free speech. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a theater. You can't make death threats to the President.

Accosting the VP in a public place surrounded by Secret Service in my opinion falls under the "what the hell were you thinking?" category.

SpookyWriter
10-05-2006, 08:13 PM
You can't yell "FIRE!" in a theater. Sure you can. Just don't get caught.

johnnysannie
10-05-2006, 08:55 PM
Who is having their free speech rights removed? There have ALWAYS been limits on free speech. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a theater. You can't make death threats to the President.

Accosting the VP in a public place surrounded by Secret Service in my opinion falls under the "what the hell were you thinking?" category.


Of course there have always been REASONABLE limits. The limits which occur with increasing frequency are far from reasonable. Any citizen should be able to say "I don't like what's happening in Iraq" anywhere without fear of arrest or reprecussion. Voicing that opinion is one heck of a long way from making a death threat.

Your idea of accosting and mine must be different.

SC Harrison
10-05-2006, 09:39 PM
Sorry Steve, but I really can't seem to wrap my head around your position on this case.

How do you think I feel? Beset on all sides by evidence of this guy's poor judgment, and with an inherent respect for the Secret Service itself, I am precariously perched on the limb of Perceived Injustice.

The only way I'm coming down is if the limb breaks and I fall on my face. :)

Shadow_Ferret
10-05-2006, 09:42 PM
Of course there have always been REASONABLE limits. The limits which occur with increasing frequency are far from reasonable. Any citizen should be able to say "I don't like what's happening in Iraq" anywhere without fear of arrest or reprecussion. Voicing that opinion is one heck of a long way from making a death threat.

Your idea of accosting and mine must be different.

I guess so. I believe there's a time and place for everything and that includes voicing your opinion. Doing so in a mall situation isn't one of them. That's called being rude. He's there to glad hand, not debate issues.

I would never dream of approaching my senator or even my alderman if they were out in public and engaging them in some sort of serious debate. That isn't what those occassions are for.

dclary
10-05-2006, 10:36 PM
We saw Air Force One on the tarmac in Phoenix as we were taxiing out Tuesday night. Someone behind me started muttering "Warmonger! Baby killer! Liar!"

I verified that it wasn't Blackheart first, then called for the air marshall to stungun him, because it was late and we were tired.

robeiae
10-05-2006, 10:51 PM
I verified that it wasn't Blackheart first, then called for the air marshall to stungun him, because it was late and we were tired.Had it been Blackheart, would you have done it yourself?

Papa'sLiver
10-05-2006, 11:05 PM
I don't care much of a dumbass this guy is, he should be allowed to say anything he wants to the VP outside of a threat and not be arrested. Heckling is not a crime. Even if you're doing it for publicity or whatever reason.


And I totally agree with that. Hey, I don't agree with protestors being kept two blocks away from anywhere the AHole in Chief is, either.

Shadow_Ferret
10-05-2006, 11:20 PM
And I totally agree with that. Hey, I don't agree with protestors being kept two blocks away from anywhere the AHole in Chief is, either.

Yeah, OK. Let's make the secret service's life even more difficult. Let's take chances with the President's life.

Papa'sLiver
10-05-2006, 11:56 PM
Yeah, OK. Let's make the secret service's life even more difficult. Let's take chances with the President's life.


oh, come on. Protesting while he's whizzing by in his armor plated limo is really taking a chance with his life? What, is some protestor going to whip out a bong bomb and throw it? They cordon off the route, and have all sorts of security. It's just so His Idiocy doesn't have to look at people that don't agree with him.

Shadow_Ferret
10-06-2006, 12:04 AM
What, is some protestor going to whip out a bong bomb and throw it? They cordon off the route, and have all sorts of security. It's just so His Idiocy doesn't have to look at people that don't agree with him.

Yes, there are lunatics all over. Look at Squeaky Fromm and John Hinkley. This is post 9/11 America. Why take a chances?

Sheryl Nantus
10-06-2006, 12:52 AM
afaik, the Secret Service is made up of highly trained professional agents who are *not* picked because of their political views. They are there to do their job and protect the target, whether it's Bill Clinton or the first Bush or Jimmy Carter. Or, as in the great Nick Cage movie, the First Lady.

they don't get a choice on who to protect and who not to protect. Nor do they get a preference on what they perceive to be a threat.

I always find it interesting that those who criticize the cops or anyone in law enforcement assume that there's a political bent behind everything. The cops are all corrupt; the Secret Service guys are all pro-Bush, etc... instead of recognizing that maybe, just maybe, they're following the rules set out years ago for dealing with certain situations.

you Americans... seeing conspiracies everywhere.

:)

Papa'sLiver
10-06-2006, 02:38 AM
Yes, there are lunatics all over. Look at Squeaky Fromm and John Hinkley. This is post 9/11 America. Why take a chances?


Yeah, but that doesn't explain why protestors can't line the street while his armor plated limo cruises by at 60mph. Squeaky and John had handguns. Not a real danger to him in his limo.

johnnysannie
10-06-2006, 02:57 AM
I guess so. I believe there's a time and place for everything and that includes voicing your opinion. Doing so in a mall situation isn't one of them. That's called being rude. He's there to glad hand, not debate issues.

I would never dream of approaching my senator or even my alderman if they were out in public and engaging them in some sort of serious debate. That isn't what those occassions are for.

When I worked in broadcasting, I interviewed many politicians including a United States Senator. To me, they're just people - worthy of respect but they certainly are not gods high on a pedestal.

And IMHO since our elected officials are intended to represent we citizens, any public appearance is fair season to voice opinions.

dclary
10-06-2006, 03:06 AM
Had it been Blackheart, would you have done it yourself?

No. I always carry a hypodermic needle filled with a back-bacon/crown royal cocktail that's rated A+ for tranquilizing a rampaging canuck.

Sheryl Nantus
10-06-2006, 03:08 AM
No. I always carry a hypodermic needle filled with a back-bacon/crown royal cocktail that's rated A+ for tranquilizing a rampaging canuck.

did I ever date you???

:D

dclary
10-06-2006, 03:09 AM
did I ever date you???

:D

Do you suffer crush damage from having been wedged under a 300-pound Republican?

If so...

blacbird
10-06-2006, 03:23 AM
I guess so. I believe there's a time and place for everything and that includes voicing your opinion. Doing so in a mall situation isn't one of them. That's called being rude. He's there to glad hand, not debate issues.

In the case of Dick Cheney, he makes damsure there aren't any occasions to debate issues. Remember the famous still-secret Energy Taskforce Meeting from 2001? Nobody yet knows who attended that one.

Plus I'm not convinced Cheney has a glad hand, or a glad much of anything, for that matter.

caw.

brianm
10-06-2006, 03:27 AM
Let's say this man came up to your wife in a mall. He walks up to her and calls her a whore. He may or may not have rubbed up against her or taken her by the arm. Then he walks off to take his child to a piano lesson. He returns 10 minutes later with another child and again walks up to your wife. She's scared so she calls out to two mall security guards who are standing nearby. She tells them what happened, and they take the man away to their interrogation room in the basement of the mall and drill him to find out why he was assaulting your wife.

The man then files a lawsuit against you and your wife because of loss of enjoyment of life and his right to freedom of speech.

Now change wife to VP and Mall security to Secret Service.

What he did has nothing to do with freedom of speech or the right to protest. He was, in the opinion of the Secret service, a danger to the VP and they took the steps to eliminate that danger.

Unless, of course you believe the man who assualted your wife in the mall had the right to do that and that he was just exercising his right to freedom of speech and that you would agree he had the right to sue you. Then I guess you would think the Secret Service acted badly, too.

whistlelock
10-06-2006, 05:40 PM
Honestly, that father should be arrested!

I mean, bringing two innocent, young children near Cheney like that?

They could have caught something.

dclary
10-06-2006, 07:38 PM
Honestly, that father should be arrested!

I mean, bringing two innocent, young children near Cheney like that?

They could have caught something.

He's lucky Cheney didn't shoot them.

SC Harrison
10-06-2006, 09:16 PM
Let's say this man came up to your wife in a mall. He walks up to her and calls her a whore.

Well, down here in the South we don't cotton to that stuff. We have laws that actually state "Cussing A Female" is a crime. I'm not exactly sure what the punisment is, but I think it involves running errands or sitting with a sewing group on Friday night.

SpookyWriter
10-06-2006, 09:24 PM
He's lucky Cheney didn't shoot them.Don't you think Cheney has shot enough people lately? Now if Cheney offered to sit down and discuss politics with the man then I could see where that would be punishment enough.

dclary
10-06-2006, 09:38 PM
Don't you think Cheney has shot enough people lately?

As a future VPOTUS, I require Cheney to shoot as many people as he can, to help set precedent.

Papa'sLiver
10-06-2006, 09:40 PM
Let's say this man came up to your wife in a mall. He walks up to her and calls her a whore. He may or may not have rubbed up against her or taken her by the arm. Then he walks off to take his child to a piano lesson. He returns 10 minutes later with another child and again walks up to your wife. She's scared so she calls out to two mall security guards who are standing nearby. She tells them what happened, and they take the man away to their interrogation room in the basement of the mall and drill him to find out why he was assaulting your wife.

The man then files a lawsuit against you and your wife because of loss of enjoyment of life and his right to freedom of speech.

Now change wife to VP and Mall security to Secret Service.

What he did has nothing to do with freedom of speech or the right to protest. He was, in the opinion of the Secret service, a danger to the VP and they took the steps to eliminate that danger.

Unless, of course you believe the man who assualted your wife in the mall had the right to do that and that he was just exercising his right to freedom of speech and that you would agree he had the right to sue you. Then I guess you would think the Secret Service acted badly, too.


Um, your wife is not a public figure, voted into her wifeyness by the public, is she? Was she at the mall to gladhand? Not even in the same ballpark.

Shadow_Ferret
10-06-2006, 10:12 PM
So it's acceptable to harrass a public figure in this post-9/11 era of heightened security around our government officials?

Papa'sLiver
10-06-2006, 11:02 PM
So it's acceptable to harrass a public figure in this post-9/11 era of heightened security around our government officials?


I'm not saying that, however, if you're going to volunteer for public life, then buck up and take the heat along with the cool, regardless of 9/11 fears (which really just feeds into the terrorists winning, doesn't it? If he's too afraid to come out and bee seen in public?) And don't give me that "heightened security" stuff, either, for if he and his handlers were really worried about it, he wouldn't have crawled out from under his "undisclosed location".

And really, the guy wasn't harrassing him. Calling him names, calling his mother names, calling him the son of a thousand fathers is harrassing.

Calling him on his horrible war is not harrassing. it's calling a spade a spade.

brianm
10-07-2006, 02:52 AM
I'm not saying that, however, if you're going to volunteer for public life, then buck up and take the heat along with the cool, regardless of 9/11 fears (which really just feeds into the terrorists winning, doesn't it? If he's too afraid to come out and bee seen in public?) And don't give me that "heightened security" stuff, either, for if he and his handlers were really worried about it, he wouldn't have crawled out from under his "undisclosed location".

And really, the guy wasn't harrassing him. Calling him names, calling his mother names, calling him the son of a thousand fathers is harrassing.

Calling him on his horrible war is not harrassing. it's calling a spade a spade.

You're right, the comparison was wrong. The housewife doesn't have daily threats on her life. Whereas, this public figure, the second most powerful man in the western world and vice-president of the USA, does have daily threats on his life.

If you want to stand at a safe distance and yell whatever makes you feel good at the vice-president, then go for it! Have at it! Bust a lung! But, approach him a second time after being inches away the first time and you will get arrested. You look like you are up to no good and the Secret Service cannot take a chance that you are just exercising your freedom of speech.

Yelling at a public figure accomplishes nothing. And my guess is this guy is one of millions who are all yack and no action. They yell and yack their heads off about how bad everthing is... However, they have never volunteered or become involved in making changes and alot of them don't even go vote.

The beauty of our system is that we the people elect another president and VP every four years. Instead of teaching your children to make a display of themselves in public, teach them about how they can make a change by voting... quietly... in a curtained booth.

English Dave
10-07-2006, 03:14 AM
Yelling at a public figure accomplishes nothing. And my guess is this guy is one of millions who are all yack and no action. They yell and yack their heads off about how bad everthing is... However, they have never volunteered or become involved in making changes and alot of them don't even go vote.



Yet I now know about him? Who the hell are you?

brianm
10-07-2006, 06:05 PM
Yet I now know about him? Who the hell are you?

Someone who mutes the president, vice-president, and rump roast anytime they come on the television because I don't believe a thing that comes out of their mouths. Also, someone who knows that long before 9/11 the Secret Service has had their hands full of crazies who would like to cause harm to their charges.

I have listened to enough people from all walks of life vehemently complain about the current administration. However, they won't volunteer, they won't get involved and many of them say they don't vote anymore because the elections are fixed or their vote doesn't count. This guy reminds me of them and that's why I said in a previous post "my guess" is this guy is one of these types of people.

He's certainly irresponsible, because no responsible father would put his young children in a situation like that.

Inkdaub
10-11-2006, 05:00 PM
So it's acceptable to harrass a public figure in this post-9/11 era of heightened security around our government officials?

If by harrass you mean heckle then yes it is acceptable.

Inkdaub
10-11-2006, 05:09 PM
You're right, the comparison was wrong. The housewife doesn't have daily threats on her life. Whereas, this public figure, the second most powerful man in the western world and vice-president of the USA, does have daily threats on his life.

If you want to stand at a safe distance and yell whatever makes you feel good at the vice-president, then go for it! Have at it! Bust a lung! But, approach him a second time after being inches away the first time and you will get arrested. You look like you are up to no good and the Secret Service cannot take a chance that you are just exercising your freedom of speech.

Yelling at a public figure accomplishes nothing. And my guess is this guy is one of millions who are all yack and no action. They yell and yack their heads off about how bad everthing is... However, they have never volunteered or become involved in making changes and alot of them don't even go vote.

The beauty of our system is that we the people elect another president and VP every four years. Instead of teaching your children to make a display of themselves in public, teach them about how they can make a change by voting... quietly... in a curtained booth.

That's fine...unless the guy is at the mall. Does he expect to walk the mall and not be close to other people? That's his problem and not the people who happen to see him at the mall and decide to voice their opinion of his policies or his character. He pursued the power and it's his problem if that makes it inconvenient to stroll around the mall.

Liam Jackson
10-11-2006, 05:10 PM
Yet I now know about him? Who the hell are you?

He's another writer expressing his opinion in an open forum.

robeiae
10-11-2006, 05:39 PM
He pursued the power and it's his problem if that makes it inconvenient to stroll around the mall.Kinda snuffs out the idea of a 'public servant' once and for all, no?

And we wonder why our best and brightest are no longer willing to go into government, unless it's in a nameless and faceless role.

Really, the idea that any government official is fair game for heckling whenever they are in public is one of the most noxious aspects of our current society. I'm ashamed and embarrased that so many of my fellow countrymen (and women) have adopted this point of view. And I'm disgusted by the ways they try to justify it through vehicles like "Freedom of Speech."

I despise Ted Kennedy, but I would never voice my feelings towards him when he was engaged in the everyday activities of a private citizen, no matter if he was in a mall or on a golf course. It's the height of bad manners and boorish behavior. But maybe that's just me...

There are plenty of times when it is entirely appropriate to voice displeasure with public officials, and there are plenty of ways to voice that displeasure. Accosting someone in public is not one of them.

SC Harrison
10-11-2006, 07:10 PM
Kinda snuffs out the idea of a 'public servant' once and for all, no?

And we wonder why our best and brightest are no longer willing to go into government, unless it's in a nameless and faceless role.

Really, the idea that any government official is fair game for heckling whenever they are in public is one of the most noxious aspects of our current society. I'm ashamed and embarrased that so many of my fellow countrymen (and women) have adopted this point of view. And I'm disgusted by the ways they try to justify it through vehicles like "Freedom of Speech."

I despise Ted Kennedy, but I would never voice my feelings towards him when he was engaged in the everyday activities of a private citizen, no matter if he was in a mall or on a golf course. It's the height of bad manners and boorish behavior. But maybe that's just me...

There are plenty of times when it is entirely appropriate to voice displeasure with public officials, and there are plenty of ways to voice that displeasure. Accosting someone in public is not one of them.

I must have bumped my head Rob, but it appears you're blaming our lack of decent public servants on previous hecklers' behavior, causing a "fear of heckling" or some other phobia. You know...that would make a great article for the Onion...

Anyway, I am also not one to make a public scene, and will go out of my way to keep from embarassing or offending others, regardless of whether I like them or not. If I was able to get close enough to Cheney to shake his hand, I doubt if I would have the guts to mention anything untoward.

But...that doesn't mean I want all heckling to stop. I'd really like to see more creativity, though. You know, body paint, funny clothes, etc. Bring back "mooning" or something. Don't waste your fifteen seconds of fame by saying, "If you don't mind, I have a few concerns I'd like to bring up..."

Sheryl Nantus
10-11-2006, 07:30 PM
people have generally lost the concept of respect.

respect for the elderly, the infirm... we run right over them while humming the latest rap crap about beating our women and then wonder why other countries might find us offensive.

no respect for anyone - and especially if they're stupid enough to take office!

seriously, I wonder why anyone runs for office anymore... it's not worth it when you can make more money in the private enterprise...

robeiae
10-11-2006, 07:37 PM
I must have bumped my head Rob, but it appears you're blaming our lack of decent public servants on previous hecklers' behavior, causing a "fear of heckling" or some other phobia.Nah...just one of many contributing factors. And my mentioning of it should be read with some sense of the satirical.

Still, ridiculing people in public is common behavior, in both senses of the word...

Andre_Laurent
10-11-2006, 08:04 PM
It sounds to me like somebody is looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
He went looking for trouble and found it. My heart bleeds purple piss for him.

blacbird
10-11-2006, 09:10 PM
And we wonder why our best and brightest are no longer willing to go into government, unless it's in a nameless and faceless role.

The endless right-wing rhetoric about "all government is bad, all government workers are lazy and dishonest, etc.," that wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?

caw.

robeiae
10-11-2006, 09:48 PM
The endless right-wing rhetoric about "all government is bad, all government workers are lazy and dishonest, etc.," that wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it?It certainly doesn't help, does it? But I'm not sure why you qualify it as "right-wing" rhetoric.

dclary
10-11-2006, 09:52 PM
Because it's against left-wing policy to shrink government. Unless it's for the military.

brianm
10-11-2006, 11:01 PM
The worse thing about all of this is how his children will be treated in school. If adults on this forum are reacting so strongly to the father's actions, imagine how the children's peers will react in school. They will be ridiculed and no youngster deserves that... no matter how much a parent dislikes or disagrees with a politician. The father's fifteen minutes of fame will cause a great deal of hurt and humiliation for his children.

Papa'sLiver
10-11-2006, 11:14 PM
Because it's against left-wing policy to shrink government. Unless it's for the military.


But the government is more bloated now, than it was say about 7 years ago, isn't it?

SC Harrison
10-12-2006, 05:11 AM
Nah...just one of many contributing factors. And my mentioning of it should be read with some sense of the satirical.

Still, ridiculing people in public is common behavior, in both senses of the word...

I knew you were engaging in something other than deep-rooted conviction, I was just bored and couldn't find anything else to poke with a stick. :)

But I also tire of the way we allow the comments of these folks to diffuse interest in the reason behind their outbursts. Almost as if...their rudeness somehow evens things up; since they're unbalanced, their argument is also unbalanced, and whatever concerns they had aren't worth giving further thought.

I don't know if that makes sense.