Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

On the one hand, I imagine most states don't ban open carry of registered guns. It's that whole "right to bear arms" thing. I think every state has regulations governing the liscencing process for carrying a concealed weapon, but I can't think of any (off the top of my head, I haven't researched it) that have regulations covering carrying a gun in the open (as long as you aren't brandishing it, pointing it at people, etc). In that light, the guy is doing nothing more than exercizing his rights, and the church has every right to support him (nothing in the Bible says "Thou Shalt Not Carry Weapons").

On the other hand, between the gun and the sign, it's obviously a threatening context and the guy's an idiot if he thinks no one will see that as a threat. The chief of police doesn't have any right to remove the guy, but the Secret Service may (not sure). Also, while the Church allowing the guy on the property may just be a general, "Sure, why not, as long as he doesn't start trouble" permission, it's far more likely to be tacit support of his position, which is extreme right wing. Not encouraging.

Lastly, did that CNN article just publish to the world the President's Secret Service codename?!?!?!?!?! This is why I hate journalists! Talk about stupid!

 

NOG -- the secret service code name of every president (and their family) is well known before they take office. At least they have since the whole process started.

 

... So wtf is the point of a codename, then?

 

NOG,

Not just the President, but Michelle and the kids have code names too, and they are changed daily, so while they very well may have announced the president's code name that was used at some point, I seriously doubt anyone in the press has access to what code name they are using for the president TODAY. Also many previously-used code names are continued to be used as decoy code names, so there's even that possibility.

 

As my link stated: today, the names simply serve for purposes of brevity, clarity, and tradition.

The code names are very distinct words that are not normally used in conversation (at least not by security). An announcement such as "rawhide has been shot" or "lancer is down" puts every secret service agent into action very quickly and effectively.

Hopefully, no such announcement will ever be made for renegade.

 

Didn't we just debate this on the Gates' thread? I would have hate to have read anything on that thread if Gates had actually had a gun strapped to his leg, even if he was on his own property...

 

I would hope the SS has the right to take him down, as in arrest him, as carrying a firearm openly and brandishing a sign with those words should = trouble in any law-enforcement officers book. It shouldn't take a whole lot of thinking to figure that one out, but you never know in today's world. Especially when the President is making an appearance. I would hope they removed him prior or forced him to put the gun away, for National Security purposes.

 

This is slightly off-topic (or, rather, on topic a page ago) but I just had to post this. It perfectly illuminates how dumb the Hitler comparisons are, and, though a parody, uses some of the very examples I've seen on serious t-shirts and bumper stickers.

http://obamaisliterallyhitler.tumblr.com/

Written by a man calling himself PANTS. Awesome.

 

Here's more from the anti-reform crowd:

I don't think I've ever seen anythng like this in politics. It's absolutely disgraceful.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32377979/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

 

Blades, in the US, we have freedom of speech. That means he's free to criticize and wave signs all he wants (creating a public disturbance is an iffy area, but he isn't creating a disturbance, he's involved in a (I assume) permitted demonstration). In that state, at least, he's also free to carry a weapon, so long as the weapon is legal and not concealed. He has done nothing illegal (not even made direct threats of any kind). He's scary, and a person to watch, but he's not broken any laws. In fact, I'm betting he's hoping he'll be arrested for having the gun just so he can shove the law in someone's face.

I'm sorry, Chandos, but I can't believe you've never seen anything like this before. If that's true, you weren't paying any attention durring the last election. Vandalism was commonplace in many states against Rep and Dem campaign centers alike, for everything from the Presidential campaign to local city positions. Compared to many of those, a swastica and the N-word is tame. Some places were flat-out looted/smashed, computers destroyed on-site, and I think there were even a few fires. I also know there were fist-fights over people putting campaign signs on other people's yards or stealing them from the yards.

It's disgraseful, yes, and sickening, too, but not a first time.

 

Oh, I agree, which is why I said the Secret Service may be another matter. They have authority that the police don't have.

 

Well, that's reassuring for free speech: A "permitted demonstration?" It's "free speech" as long as it's "permitted?" Lots of freedom there....

 

I can't help but envision The Mask getting searched, having a bazooka pulled out of his pants ... "I've got a permit for that."

... and then he really does have a permit.

 

Palincare: How about that "GOP strategy" we've been hearing about?

Date: 09/05/2008

Does this sound familiar?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html

JUly, 2009:

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=10727850

This is a complicated issue and I admit that I'm not sure how the 2 events are related, other than this is Palin's take on health care reform, and a major breakdown in the state run health care system in Alaska. It's just my feeling that empty rhetoric produces empty results. It may be fair to blame Palin in this instance because some inside the system are saying that beyond the rhetoric, she just ignored the problem. But to really feel comfortable in blaming Palin (indirectly) for this breakdown, I need more facts. I don't want to be unfair, despite Palin's own Obama's "death panel" comment from a few days ago, which I feel was unfair.

The thing about this event, and Palin's "anti-bureaucracy" rant in her rhetoric points to somethng Ragusa commented on a few days ago. It was something like, when bureaucrats (like Palin) complain that the system is not competent enough because of the "bureaucrats" in charge, maybe we should listen. Just maybe they know themselves better than we do.

 

I fail to see how a health care bill could cause anarchy, especially if in the same breathe the critic is saying it could cause socialism -- IMHO those things are freaking polar opposites. Mere ad hominem horsepuckey. Such critics have obviously put little thought into their vitriol.

 

I do not see how that would work, LKD. The only way a bill can introduce anarchy is if it removes any regulations... which is probably the opposite of what would happen. Most opponents of Obama's plan argue that instead it would stiffle all competition and create a monopoly, though I rather doubt that as well.

BTW, time and again I see the idea that the new healthcare plan will cost over $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Does anyone know by how much healthcare costs have increased in the last 10 years? The best I can find is http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml , but it is not informative enough for such a comparison.

 

As Tal said, there's no way they are going to let that guy stand on the side of the road when the presidential motorcade drives by. (Not that he could do anything with that gun - the presidential limo is bulletproof even from an assault rifle - a hand gun would barely scratch the paint.)

But there's a larger point here - they restrict acess to a lot of places if you are carrying a gun - even if you do so legally. Most sports stadiums have metal detectors, and you won't be getting in if you have a gun (again, even legally). Same things goes for concerts. I'm pretty sure the ban against carrying firearms into courthouses is universal. Standing on the side of the street where the president is gonig to be travelling shortly is definitely on that list as well.

But NOG, this isn't simply vadalism. The fact that they are painting swastikas and using the N-word is the reason that it is worse. You may not see a difference from a legal perspective between painting a swastika on the Congressman's sign verses painting "you suck" on it, but the intent and mindset behind those two messages are entirely different.

(As an aside, it is even different from a legal perspective. If it can be shown that the same guy who sent the letters calling Scott the N-word was the guy who spray painted the swastika outside, it's not an act of simple vandalism, but could potentially be prosecuted as a hate crime. This isn't all that different from the point on racism that DR was making to you earlier.)

I would say it's a hell of a lot more than unfair. It's untrue. There is no "death panel" in any of the proposed bills. I don't even know where Palin came up with that term, as it seems she pulled "death panel" right out of her arse.

 

Your kidding right? Your actually defending him? Carrying a gun and holding THAT sign? On a street that the president will soon be traveling on? PLEASE, tell me your kidding....