On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:25:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Doug Winterburn" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:18:08 -0800, Fly-by-Night CC wrote:

How do you defend the Bush team's sanitization of any dissenting speech
at
public rallies? And I'm not speaking of vocal disruptions but t-shirts
and
placards - topped off by requiring a signed "loyalty oath". Those
actions
speak volumes to how much this administration is averse to hearing any
point of view that differs with its own. From day one they've had an
attitude of "you're either with us or against us" to one and all,
concerning one and all. They don't give a damn about anyone's point of
view but their own.

I truly fear for the future if Bush becomes a lame duck president. As it
is now, we, our kids and grandkids will pay for his actions for decades
to
come.

Owen, I have no idea where you're getting this "loyalty oath" crap. I
went to the Phoenix Diamondback stadium rally for Bush along with
40,000 other folks following the last debate. There was no qualifications
or any questions in the ticket process. There were metal detectors and
airport type security at the gates, but there was zero to do with party
affiliations or who do you like stuff. There were a few demonstrators
outside with Republicans for Kerry signs, and by some of the conversation
in line, some Kerry supporters attended the event with no problems - and
no "loyalty oath". Most folks were there to support Bush.

-Doug

In other cities, protesters were granted permits, but only if their
gatherings took place blocks away, far from TV cameras.

That is absolute, pure, unadulterated BS. Far from TV cameras my @$$!
If there was a protest, I guarantee you that the mainstream media, were
they alerted to where the protest was going to occur were going to be
there. It could have been in the next state for all they cared, the
networks were going to cover any and every protest. As a matter of fact,
it would have been even better were they to have been forced to be in the
next state, the lead on the network newscast would have been, "A hearty
band of protestors, excluded by the Bush administration from protesting
near their campaign activity were forced to hold their gathering in nearby
...."


As I recall, Bush's
spokespersons have not mentioned concerns about violence with regard to this
type of segregation. They want to keep the blinders on their supporters.


Given the expressed purpose of many of the protests as stated beforehand,
"to disrupt the Bush speech", etc. it seems that the protesters were the
ones trying to stifle the free speech of those whom they opposed.

Do you honestly believe that Bush supporters don't see the nightly
newscasts, or other reports of the protests and anti-Bush talking points?
Now, as a counter-point, please provide me mainstream references that
portrayed Bush in a positive light.