No difference, eh?

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

When Bush held speeches and town hall meetings he would corral all protesters far out of sight and earshot and call these "free speech zones". He had no tolerance for dissenting opinions.

For those who think Obama is no different I present another example. During his town hall meeting today a man with a gun stood outside the school, holding a sign quoting Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

He was monitored but because he was technically not breaking any laws (he was a private property, a church gave him permission to be there, how Christian of them).

This is exactly the mindset that I'm talking about that needs to change. I know he's just a douchebag that wants attention (and is getting it, even from me) but it's funny how much Republicans and Conservatives would howl about how much we need to respect the President, until we elect a Democratic one.

I don't know what point this guy is trying to make other than a thinly-veiled threat to the President. I hear Obama's detractors calling him a tyrant but I have yet to see him remove a single right from anyone.

Comments

Re: You must be shocked, shocked, you say!

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

The difference is we'd allow disagreement, we just don't allow disagreement as an excuse to drown out everyone else's opinions.

These are forums where everyone should be allowed to participate because it's a chance for the people to express their opinions to their elected officials. I mean it doesn't get much more democratic than that. So when these douchebags disrupt the process and refuse to let others give their opinion, and in fact refuse to let the elected official speak, then in my book they take things too far. They're being childish and undemocratic.

Add to that the threats and the effigies and only the most blindly partisan would say there's nothing wrong with this.

Re: You must be shocked, shocked, you say!

[xforge.livejournal.com]

Let them do it and THEN remove them. Preemptive removal is anti-free speech.

Re: You must be shocked, shocked, you say!

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

You're assuming someone carrying a sign wants to shout down the President, and this is not necessarily the case. It wasn't about being able to speak, Bush was just very image-conscious and didn't want to have images of protesters at his speeches.