Print
E-mail
Comment
Protesters arrested at Gonzales speech
 |
| (Scott Robertson / Alligator Staff) Former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales pauses during his speech as a protester stands next to him at the Phillips Center on Monday night. |
By DEVIN CULCLASURE, Alligator Writer
In his first appearance at a university since resigning in August, former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was met at UF on Monday with a mixture of cheers, boos and scattered interruptions by protesters, two of whom were arrested.
Gonzales, who resigned from his position after a controversial tenure, spoke to more than 800 people at the Phillips Center for the Performing Arts.
During his prepared speech, Gonzales largely avoided discussing the controversies he faced in office, including his dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys.
Gonzales, who resigned from his position after a controversial tenure, spoke to more than 800 people at the Phillips Center for the Performing Arts.
During his prepared speech, Gonzales largely avoided discussing the controversies he faced in office, including his dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys.
related links
Instead, he focused on encouraging students to consider a career in public service while describing his own experiences in that field.
About 15 minutes into his speech, two UF students, Richard Gutierrez and Kevin Hachey, climbed onto the stage wearing orange jumpsuits and black hoods on their heads.
University Police Department officers scrambled onto the stage to remove them.
Matthew Cox, an employee of the Phillips Center, wrestled with one protester on the far side of stage, grabbing his legs and pulling him down.
The other stood directly next to Gonzales, who calmly avoided looking in his direction.
As police took the protester away, Gonzales glanced in his direction before attempting to continue his speech while he waited for the raucous crowd to settle down after a few minutes.
A few more protesters climbed onto the stage.
Meanwhile, even more protesters stood up, removed shirts or jackets revealing yellow T-shirts that read "SHAME," and stood with their backs toward Gonzales.
They remained standing in their positions for the rest of the event.
Eventually, Gonzales continued his speech and then sat across from Henry Wihnyk, a UF law professor, for a question-and-answer session.
Wihnyk read students' questions, which had been written on index cards before and during Gonzales' speech.
During Gonzales' address, the self-described "son of a Mexican immigrant and cotton picker" said his life was evidence of the American dream.
"I love America for all that she has done for me," he said. "We are not perfect. Sometimes we stumble, but we always get up."
Gonzales said he was proud of his record and defended his work with President Bush, though there were missteps, he said.
Later, he ignored scattered jeers from the crowd to answer questions about his dismissal of the attorneys, the Geneva Convention and torture.
Afterward, UPD Lt. Stacey Ettel said Gutierrez and Hachey were arrested for disrupting a public event.
Ettel said UPD expected most of the protester's actions because they received information about some of the plans prior to the event. However, UPD did not anticipate what Gutierrez and Hachey did, he said.
Still, Ettel said he believed most of the protesters' behavior was acceptable.
"I felt like they were able to express their feelings and voice their concerns from a visual viewpoint," he said.
Steve Orlando, UF spokesman, said the usual number of four security officers was present. He added that he also thought most of the protesters expressed their views reasonably.
"A few crossed the line, but I think it went pretty well," Orlando said.
"I think Mr. Gonzales saw a whole lot of First Amendment tonight," he added with a laugh. "As he said, that's what this place is about."
About 15 minutes into his speech, two UF students, Richard Gutierrez and Kevin Hachey, climbed onto the stage wearing orange jumpsuits and black hoods on their heads.
University Police Department officers scrambled onto the stage to remove them.
Matthew Cox, an employee of the Phillips Center, wrestled with one protester on the far side of stage, grabbing his legs and pulling him down.
The other stood directly next to Gonzales, who calmly avoided looking in his direction.
As police took the protester away, Gonzales glanced in his direction before attempting to continue his speech while he waited for the raucous crowd to settle down after a few minutes.
A few more protesters climbed onto the stage.
Meanwhile, even more protesters stood up, removed shirts or jackets revealing yellow T-shirts that read "SHAME," and stood with their backs toward Gonzales.
They remained standing in their positions for the rest of the event.
Eventually, Gonzales continued his speech and then sat across from Henry Wihnyk, a UF law professor, for a question-and-answer session.
Wihnyk read students' questions, which had been written on index cards before and during Gonzales' speech.
During Gonzales' address, the self-described "son of a Mexican immigrant and cotton picker" said his life was evidence of the American dream.
"I love America for all that she has done for me," he said. "We are not perfect. Sometimes we stumble, but we always get up."
Gonzales said he was proud of his record and defended his work with President Bush, though there were missteps, he said.
Later, he ignored scattered jeers from the crowd to answer questions about his dismissal of the attorneys, the Geneva Convention and torture.
Afterward, UPD Lt. Stacey Ettel said Gutierrez and Hachey were arrested for disrupting a public event.
Ettel said UPD expected most of the protester's actions because they received information about some of the plans prior to the event. However, UPD did not anticipate what Gutierrez and Hachey did, he said.
Still, Ettel said he believed most of the protesters' behavior was acceptable.
"I felt like they were able to express their feelings and voice their concerns from a visual viewpoint," he said.
Steve Orlando, UF spokesman, said the usual number of four security officers was present. He added that he also thought most of the protesters expressed their views reasonably.
"A few crossed the line, but I think it went pretty well," Orlando said.
"I think Mr. Gonzales saw a whole lot of First Amendment tonight," he added with a laugh. "As he said, that's what this place is about."
article tools
|
blogs
July 2nd, 2009 CorrectionThe UF-Georgia football game is held annually at the Jacksonville Municipal Stadium. The contract for the game is between UF and the city of Jacksonville. An article in Tuesday’s paper stated otherwise. |
No comments posted. |
Add your comment below. Comments in no way reflect the positions of The Independent Florida Alligator or Campus Communications. |
Please register to leave a comment.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
Meltzer wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:35 AM:
" This was an absolute embarassment to our university. Even if you don't agree with Gonzales, treat the man with some respect. Despite his poor handling of his office, he has acheived a lot more than anyone who was deriding him tonight, and did not deserve to be treated like that.
The behavior of these peoepl was absolutely devoid of class and professionalism. I expected more out of UF.
And with no weapons screening and the protestors ease of approaching the stage, I was also bothered by the lack of security. Had one of thoe prostestors decided to pull a weapon on Gonzales, it would not have been too hard. "
T-Rex wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:46 AM:
" What a shame and disgrace. UF has got to do something about this. I do not like Clinton, who actually is a bad guy, but when he was here it never crossed my mind to try to divert the focus of the event to myself or disrespect him in public and embarrass my University. Meyers already destroyed Q&A and who knows how much longer until UF is known as the school to avoid speaking at unless you want to deal with self-absorbed liberal idiots trolling for attention. Insane liberals are always welcome because conservatives would never do anything so infantile and disgraceful. Disrupting public events, physically intimidating invited speakers and making public discourse impossible is not "free speech" so please do not apply benevolent terms to these groups of truly pathetic people. "
dur wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:24 AM:
" Anthony they weren't tased becaused they actually DID NOT RESIST...meaning fight, hurt other people, run a muck..like the other kid.
there are actual mature people living amougst us.
"
Lobo wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:18 AM:
" I would have been very disappointed if nobody had made their statements of disappointment about what Mr. Gonzalez did to our justice system. Protest is part of our right to free speech, and I am still proud that these people made their statements, albeit much too late, but remained peaceful. God bless America!
"
mimi wrote on Nov 20, 2007 8:30 AM:
" The only thing that I found embarrassing
was this mans presence on our stage,
not to mention the amount of money paid
for it. He should be indicted on criminal
charges, not respected by us. "
Alumna wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:10 AM:
" If firing employees is a criminal act, I know of a few employers out there who should be in jail... "
Gator wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:20 AM:
" Yet again, for the 1000th consecutive time, it is left-wing liberals who are utterly unable to act with any sense of decorum when they disagree with someone. Much like their methods of political debate (i.e. shrieking "liar" and "racist" at anyone with a differing viewpoint), liberals are also consistently disruptive of speakers on college campuses, including ours. Their tactics are an embarassment to our student body and a threat to the exchange of ideas that is supposed to be the hallmark of higher education. These are miserable people. "
yay wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:27 AM:
" as one of the protesters, i'd like to point out that any sign holding, hood wearing, or back turning was done in complete silence. it was the rest of the crowd who heckled the hell out of that fascist and make a ruckus during our brief demonstrations. "
Blah Blah wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:28 AM:
" Liberals this, liberals that, liberals liberals liberals! That's a much better method of political debate right Gator? "
yay wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:32 AM:
" oh yeah, might as well chime in and say that most of the protesters you saw last night aren't liberals. just anti-fascists "
Roots wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:59 AM:
" I'm proud of UF students for showing up and letting it be known what a disgrace that man is to our country. He was OBVIOUSLY corrupt and has no business coming to speak to intellectuals pretending he is a good man and a good old fashioned hard working American success story. The truth is he was appointed to the top because he had already proven himself as a deceptive puppet as Bush's private attorney. Even the most right wing republicans must see that this man has undermined the entire political process, he disgraced your house and isn't even smart enough to defend a position, instead he continuously lies and says he "doesn't recall" anything significant. Obviously he's a liar.. How can you defend that? Why would anyone want this guy to come speak at our University and be honored? It would be sad if all UFstudents were that ignorant. The man resigned to avoid further explanation of his obviously corrupt actions in office. He wasn't here to talk about anything important, but to render people docile and pretend he served his country well. I don't think he'll be continuing endeavors with speaking events at "Public Universities."
P.S.If the media you get hasn't informed you of the deception that this individual has been involved in, it's time to look elsewhere for news! "
matt wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:06 AM:
" the audience was entirely justified in yelling at him during the q&a. if the man had bothered to answer the questions posed, rather than dodging them and instead blabbering on about freedom, there would have been fewer problems. the few protesters are to be expected, but the majority of his "hecklers" really joined in when he didnt give straight answers. "
kelvin wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:14 AM:
" Get used to it, Alberto Gonzales. Your new career as a laughingstock and an embarrassment is only beginning. "
jessica wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:25 AM:
" I'm glad that people protested. We gave this clown 40 grand of student money. "
Thomas wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:38 AM:
" For those who protested. Thank you. You are real patriots. "
RMD wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:40 AM:
" Well said, Roots. Gonzales is a criminal who has showed nothing but contempt towards our Constitution, the office with which we entrusted him, and our form of government. He has treated us, and Congress like idiots and made a career of lying through his teeth. This man is notorious, and earned the disapproval of both parties. How anyone could still defend him is beyond me.
That being said, I'm glad he came. We shouldn't have paid him a dime, but I'm glad he came. It was a rare opportunity for the people to directly interact with one of the extremely insulated politicians who so callously make decisions that affect us all.
Although I was pleasantly surprised with the balance that was struck between passionate protest, and Gonzales' unimpeded ability to say whatever he had to say (he was interrupted, but never stopped from speaking), I was dismayed by the lack of security, both at the door and evidenced by protesters coming so close to Gonzales. Protesters being able to climb up and stand directly next to the speaker is a big problem.
As I said though, I commend UF for their even handedness, and for their efforts to allow all voices to be heard. I'm sure some Gonzales supporters were annoyed by the demonstrations, but I would like to remind them that passionate dissent is a sign of a healthy democracy. I would ask them to take a moment before complaining (especially with "liberal this" and "liberals that," which simply comes across as closed minded) and ask themselves how important political dissent has been throughout the history of this country in gaining its independence, in securing our Bill of Rights, in ending slavery and state sanctioned racism, and in generally reminding our politicians that they serve the people, and not the other way around. "
shrubnose wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:41 AM:
" Gonzales is a war criminal. he desrves no respect . He deserves a fair trial and a new rope ! "
Bread and Rose wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:51 AM:
" I'm proud of the UF students who refused to show respect to a man who has showed America and the Constitution nothing but contempt. His so-called "achievements" (mostly babysitting W the largest part of his career and enjoying the spoils W deigned to share with him) pale by comparison to the crimes he committed and the damage he has done to our country and its most fundamental principles and institutions. The protesters have now achieved far more for America than Gonzales ever did or ever will. I salute you student activists for using your right to peaceful protest - especially when all the evidence is on your side. Well done. "
shrubnose wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:52 AM:
" Why would anyone PAY to listen to this fools lies ? It makes me sick to look at him. He is a perfect example of how messed up the Bu$h Mis-administration is and has been . If the American people do not give these bastards what they deserve, we will live to regret it. They must ALL be brought to justice,. Hanging is too good for them . Best to lock them all up at Gitmo and throw away the key ! "
bob wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:10 AM:
" What's embarrassing is that UF paid him $40,000 to speak. I'd much rather that money go to pay for more scholarships than to hear the former attorney general who resigned in dishonor. "
Tarantula wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:12 AM:
" Patriots? You people are fools. The truth is that liberals are still having a tantrum about losing the 2000 election and they are hell-bent on tearing down anyone that they can on the right, contrived, exaggerated or otherwise. Gonzales is guilty of giving liberals something to latch onto. Firing attornies? I can't believe you nimrods got that to stick even a little. Abu Gahrib? That was old news before Gonzales and not really news at all as the handful of troublemakers there had been dealt with. Gonzales stepped down because regardless of how unfair the liberal feigned outrage was, it was causing a distraction from government's function just as the liberals wanted. As usual, they cry and whine until they get their way. They protest until they make their lies into some type of truth, at least among themselves. They repeat their lies until they get every other mindless liberal singing the same tune. It would not have mattered how Gonzales composd himself or what he said at the speech these "brave" protestors would have still made their little scene so that they could feel important and and so other idiots could talk about how "brave" they were. What they did was disgraceful. I can find something not to like about everyone on the left but I can still compose myself as a dignified human being in public. This is typical ridiculous and shrill liberal behavior. "
Tarantula needs to read wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:44 AM:
" Tarantula, do yourself a favor and read a little bit about Gonzalez. The firing of attornies was disgraceful because they were fired for not bringing spurious lawsuits against democratic candidates iin time before elections. 6 of the 8 had favorable performance reviews. One of them, David Iglesias, was the basis for the movie "A Few Good Men" and was fired for the above reason.
It's also not just about Abu Gharib, google the "Bybee Memo". Gonzalez allowed anything that didn't cause pain similar and up to "organ failure or death" and psychological torture was OK as long as it wasn't for a period of "months or even years". These are in direct defiance of the Geneva Convention and disgrace our nation and servicemen.
Not to mention his warrantless wiretapping of US citizens and disregard of Habeus Corpus. He's supposed to protect our Constitutional Laws, not urinate on them. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:45 AM:
" "We encourage your feedback and dialog, but please be respectful. Comments may appear in print." "
The Chimp wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:47 AM:
" You don't have to be a liberal to think that Gonzales is an incompetent crony that deserves censure.
And Gator - isn't "left-wing liberal" redundant?
Methinks you listen to too much AM talk radio. "
kelvin wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:59 AM:
" What, exactly, are the liberal lies about Gonzales? List some. Don't just cry. Did you see his disgraceful, lie-filled testimony to Congress? He is an iincompetent liar who resigned in disgrace. So, to those who whine about mean liberals being mean to poor Mr Gonzales....list 5 good things Gonzales did as Attorney General. Explain to us why he's NOT the worst Attorney General in history. Don't just whine. And don't act all sanctimonious, either. The well-deserved abuse heaped on the disgraced Mr Gonzales is nothing to the right-wing vitriol spewed at Clinton and his appointees. "
No More Warmongers wrote on Nov 20, 2007 12:00 PM:
" Thank you to the protestors for their patriotism. People need to wake up and understand what is actually going on in this country. Then it will no longer be Liberal this, neo-con that. It will be "we the people" vs. those who have stolen our country!!! "
Another to Tarantula wrote on Nov 20, 2007 12:16 PM:
" The US attorneys are a red herring. Do read or remember that it was Gonzales who authored torture memos before his tenure as attorney general, before Abu Ghraib. Read or remember that it was Gonzales who, before being appointed attorney general, was sent to then attorney general Ashcroft's sickbed to try to force him to sign off on warrantless wiretapping. His acts during his tenure pale could compare to those before - but you should wonder why he was rewarded by the administration for these things.
The only reason the Dems went after him for the US attorneys and not his more serious crimes is that they too are either afraid to oppose torture and the encroaching police state or actually in favor of such. Partisan sniping won't make us free, but standing up against the fascists like Gonzales may yet save us. "
Warren Sapp wrote on Nov 20, 2007 12:24 PM:
" Unfortunately, a lot of people are not taught class at a young age and never seem to gain it. "
Scott wrote on Nov 20, 2007 12:37 PM:
" I applaud the actions of the protesters. Gonzalez and the administration for which he was long a shill are a disgrace. They have damaged this country and the lives of many people. "
Pablo P. wrote on Nov 20, 2007 12:55 PM:
" If people JUST sit back and listen to Gonzo's hollow and malicious BS...then the neo-con war-profiteers will succeed in 'discarding' current knowledge and inserting their own 'history'.
Gonzo has shown consistent contempt for good-faith debate, and the protesters came prepared. Had he claimed any personal responsibility, they would've had no reason to continue. "
Ryan wrote on Nov 20, 2007 12:55 PM:
" In response to Meltzer above... maybe no guns were pulled because the crime that you fear as a Republican is not nearly as much of a problem as you like to think it is. You guys like to think you are law and order types but your man Alberto Gonzales is a figurehead of how law and order is only for the masses, when you work in the most powerful offices of the world there are no laws that can hold you back. Guantanamo bay, extraordinary rendition, torture, warantless wiretapping of American citizens, are all crimes that have occurred under the approval of Alberto Gonzales. His entire Harvard Law class signed a letter accusing him of not upholding the legal standards of this country. That is pretty sad.
I cannot wait for the day that Alberto Gonzales must say goodbye to his family as he begins a life prison sentence for war crimes. He may not of carried them out, but he provided the questionable legal justification that allowed them to happen. "
NoOneYouKnow wrote on Nov 20, 2007 12:56 PM:
" I'm proud of the protesters at UF. They showed remarkable restraint by confining themselves to catcalls and silent protest. Under the Bush administration's rules, they could be arrested without charge, sent to Gitmo, and tortured for doing so little. Few people have done so much to damage this country as Gonzales. As for the wingnuts who are upset about the protesters' rudeness and "whining": Listen to Fox News or Rush for perfect examples of rudeness and whining. "
Tom wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:03 PM:
" I'm actually impressed by the protestors. Because I'm not only a UF graduate, but also did 6 years in the US Army. In the Army we were trained in the Geneva Conventions and in proper treatment of prisoners because we knew that without reinforcing such training, it's all too easy to let thuggish people take advantage of prisoners.
For a long time the United States was proud to stick up for the Geneva Conventions. The Nazis and the Japanese Kempatai (their version of the Gestapo) tortured people but we restrained ourselves and trioed to uphold civilized principles.
And then along comes Alberto Gonzales, who sneers that those conventions are "quaint." Who says that any kind of torment or torture is OK as long as it just doesn't cause "organ failure." What kind of sick person is Alberto Gonzales?
And he got $40,000 to get up there and blather about "public service"? The guy who sent an unending chain of poor saps to their deaths in Texas because he didn't feel like reeading their appeals? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:08 PM:
" For the record, the "entire" Harvard Law Class of '82 did not sign that letter -- obviously, Alberto Gonzales didn't sign -- only 56 members of that class signed. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:11 PM:
" Tom:
First, the CIA is not bound by Army rules of interrogation. Second, is less than 10 seconds of waterboarding -- with cellophane wrapped around your head so no water gets in your mouth or nose -- really torture? "
Mike wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:22 PM:
" I was in the auditorium and could not believe I was watching fellow students embarass the university during the protest. Hold up signs, sure thats fine. Wear protest shirts, knock yourself out. But to climb up on stage and approach a speaker in that manner was totally rediculus and disrespectful. What speaker will want to come here now knowing that they will be physically obstructed during a presentation.
Next time show some class. "
elmerg wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:22 PM:
" Gonzales should be picking up garbage along Texas interstate highways, not giving BS lectures at a university. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:26 PM:
" In addition to Alberto Gonzales himself, the following Harvard Law Class of 1982 grads did NOT sign the letter:
Robert Emerson, William W. Fisher III, Joseph Magliocco, Robert B. Morton, J. Mark Ramseyer, and Parag Tripathi.
(That was just from the FIRST page of Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22harvard+law+school+1982%22&btnG=Search ) "
Bob wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:26 PM:
" He fired what, 8 attorneys. Clinton fired 93.
He did not give Padilla Habeus Corpus, Well he probobly shouldnt have planed to blow up a city with a dirty bomb.
Why do liberals love our enemies but dont care about America????
"
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:29 PM:
" Mike: not only totally rediculous and disrespectful, but life-threatening as well -- thank you for being civil even if we disagree on the policy -- I hope Bush gives him Secret Service protection right away. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:30 PM:
" elmerg: He has to be CONVICTED of a crime before sentencing, right? "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:32 PM:
" "is less than 10 seconds of waterboarding -- with cellophane wrapped around your head so no water gets in your mouth or nose -- really torture? "
Yes it is. It is really torture. Are you joking?
Purge all torture supporters. "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:34 PM:
" what about the golden rule, do unto others.
Gonzo needs to be tried for war crimes. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:34 PM:
" hug the moon: it's an honest question, and I am not joking -- I thought your side was FOR freedom of speech -- thank you for your opinion at least. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:36 PM:
" We are not a theocracy, hug the moon. What is YOUR solution -- probably the same as Sheryl Crow -- not have any enemies? "
slouch wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:38 PM:
" The people who continue to defend Alberto Gonzales are nothing short of traitors who deserve the shattered "republic" he's left us with. "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:38 PM:
" Mike wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:22 PM:
" I was in the auditorium and could not believe I was watching fellow students embarass the university during the protest. Hold up signs, sure thats fine. Wear protest shirts, knock yourself out. But to climb up on stage and approach a speaker in that manner was totally rediculus and disrespectful. What speaker will want to come here now knowing that they will be physically obstructed during a presentation. Next time show some class. "
They did show class. Maybe next time the UF will more deeply consider those they give platform and gold to.
All Bush admin officials will have to endure this the rest of their "careers" They can not protect freedom because they are not free themselves. Let's see bush or cheney try to go to 711 for some doritos. They can't. Lets see them walk alone any street in the world for more than a half hour. They can't. They are prisoners. "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:41 PM:
" Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:36 PM:
" We are not a theocracy, hug the moon. What is YOUR solution -- probably the same as Sheryl Crow -- not have any enemies? "
My solution is not to torture people. Anyone for any reason. It produces faulty results, kills our reputation and puts our soldiers in deeper trouble.
Now Jake D answer the question yourself, you want to see our troops waterboarded?
"
Jake D. he does need to be convicted... wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:41 PM:
" Do you support trying him, or do you consider his current "defense" enough? "
MsLiz wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:43 PM:
" The protesters (especially the non-disruptive ones) are to be commended. They may save this nation yet. Those who objected to the protesters may not be college material. They should enlist in the army or marine corps. "
10.2 wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:44 PM:
" "Insane liberals are always welcome because conservatives would never do anything so infantile and disgraceful."
Uh Terry Schiavo, Gay Baiting, Flag Burning, Stay the course,Stand up stand down..blah blah b;lah..
yeah Conservatives are all that!
This whole us versus them thing play's right into the small reptilian brain of The Neo Con apologists such as T-Rex above.
Also, T-rex, a real writer has already adopted that handle.
Maybe you could try ExLax since you seem to be so loose with your pie hole.
"
EMPY wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:55 PM:
" Bob wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:26 PM:
" He fired what, 8 attorneys. Clinton fired 93. He did not give Padilla Habeus Corpus, Well he probobly shouldnt have planed to blow up a city with a dirty bomb. Why do liberals love our enemies but dont care about America???? "
Bob, why wasn't Padilla charged with that dirty bomb crime? Why wasn't this case handled like Timothy McVeigh who was afforded every legal protection, tried in front of a jury who were presented facts and evidence gathered against him, found guilty of his crimes and punished?
Loving your country is standing up to it's enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC! "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:04 PM:
" "Why do liberals love our enemies but dont care about America???? " --This is weak. Why do you love Bush the facist and want to torture people? Because some Arab might come and pull a McVeigh on you? How many people have died because of bush? Oh so many enemies all of a sudeen.
Now go home and watch the surveilence videos of the pentagon attack. Oh thats right, there are none. And with all those cameras? Go figure. Yea, who are your enemies again? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:20 PM:
" hug the moon: I do not want to see our troops waterboarded -- unfortunately, war is hell -- that is not the question I asked though. Using your logic, however, do you really think al Qaeda abides by the Geneva Conventions? "
Ugly American wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:22 PM:
" Gonzales should be water-boarded until he confesses everything.
"
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:24 PM:
" EMPY: trying Padilla for that specific crime would have breached national security, revealing sources and methods we use for spying -- you do know that Padilla was convicted of other crimes, right? I know why I am defending Gonzales -- why are YOU defending terrorists? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:24 PM:
" Ugly American: did you see my question above re: less than 10 seconds of waterboarding? "
isu wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:26 PM:
" Congrats Gators, hopefully he will get this treatment everywhere he goes. It was respectful, but it got a serious point across. I'm almost willing to forgive you guys for winning every championship. "
danger wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:27 PM:
" I think anybody who starts going on tirades about liberals has had their credibility exhausted for the next 50 years. It's funny to watch them scrape the bottom of the barrel of insults, with retorts akin to "why do liberals like to eat aborted babies" or "why do liberals like to piss on the corpses of our fallen soldiers". Not that they've been said here, but use your imagination to delve in the anti-verse that Repub --- I won't even call this demographic by the party name anymore, because they're really just mentally ill, if anything. "
Alguien wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:28 PM:
" Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:11 PM:
My God, Jake D!
Is this were you'be been hiding after being banned from TPM????
Warning to all readers:
Jake D is a troll of the Republican Party (even though he claims he's a registered Independent) that has been banned from another blog because he was disrupting the debate by posting idiotic questions like the one he posted here (see below)
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:11 PM:
" Tom: First, the CIA is not bound by Army rules of interrogation. Second, is less than 10 seconds of waterboarding -- with cellophane wrapped around your head so no water gets in your mouth or nose -- really torture? "
And for those interested: WATERBOARDING is NOT LIMITED to what Jake D. is describing. ACTUAL WATERBOARDING (simulated drowning) is what they do in Guantanamo and other US sponsored torture sites, despite all the lies tha Gonzalz, Bush, Cheney (and Jake D) want us to believe. "
congressive wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:28 PM:
" He gets paid the equivalent of of a year's wages for the average American to mumble more lies and distractions for an hour or two? Are you kidding me? He's a lying, witness-tampering criminal with executive privilege immunity. He's a liar. We all saw it and heard it. He wasn't involved blah blah blah... what he meant to say was that he WAS involved blah blah blah. Why isn't this guy in jail? This isn't about "free speech". It's profiting from crime, which is not protected speech in any state in this nation.
The law is dead. "
danger wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:30 PM:
" Jake D: you're rightm trying Jose Padilla would have jeopardized national security, when everyone would have found out he was John Doe #2 in the Oklahoma City bombing. He was held incommunicado and tortured because he knew the government was in on it too. Why wasn't Johnny Walker Lindh or the other countless amounts of terrorists not held in secret? They didn't have any of the government's secrets, that's why. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:34 PM:
" hug the moon: there is surveilence video of the Pentagon attack -- as well as plenty of other evidence that Flight 77 was crashed by terrorists -- you also think steel doesn't melt? "
danger wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:40 PM:
" Yep, there is surveillance of Timothy McVeigh flying a plane into the Murrah Building... good god you are a retard. "
Alguien wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:43 PM:
" Hug The Moon:
reagarding Jake D.'s response:
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 1:34 PM:
" hug the moon: it's an honest question, and I am not joking -- I thought your side was FOR freedom of speech -- thank you for your opinion at least. "
Glad to see you're doing OK, Jake D.!
Now go find a hobby!
Jake D. has been posting the same "honest" question for months all over the blogosphere like a broken record.
FYI: It' NOT an honest question. It's Jake D.'s way of disprupting the debate. JAke D. Knows VERY WELL what WATERBOARDING consists of because hundreds of people have replied to his "honest question" with very reliable sources. He simply chose to stick to the "10 seconds/cellophane etc." because he thinks we are all stupid enough to listen to him. P.S The source of his "honest question" [the less than 10 seconds thing} is just a two line paragraph of a whole page in WIkipedia.
Look up WATERBOARDING in Wikipedia and you will see that Jake just chose to cherry pickwhat he liked from a plethora of data that confirm that WATERBOARDING is torture. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:44 PM:
" Alguien: I am not hiding, I was not banned, and I am not a Republican. If by "troll" you mean someone with a different opinion, I guess that qualifies. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:46 PM:
" Actually, "danger" my last question to "hug the moon" was: you also think steel doesn't melt? Please do try to keep up. "
RMD (UF Law) wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:09 PM:
" @ Jake D:
You said: "Using your logic, however, do you really think al Qaeda abides by the Geneva Conventions? "
This is the same twisted logic that threatens to destroy the honor that Americans have struggled to preserve. In fact, Gonzales used this line last night and was shouted down. Rightfully so.
So, if we know (or it is likely) that one of our enemies won't abide by the Geneva Conventions, that means we shouldn't? Taken further, since it is likely that there will always be enemies out there who do not abide by the Geneva Conventions, by your logic that would render them useless, right? Let me explain something to you, as I wish someone would to Gonzales. The Geneva Conventions are basic rules of decency. We have similar rules of decency in all areas of our everyday lives. When have we ever entertained the notion of allowing those who ignore or defy those rules to negate them? The police face criminals who lie, cheat, and steal. Does that mean it's OK for our police to lie, cheat, and steal? Even Gonzales quickly retreated from this talking point, which is just another right wing "bumper sticker" rebuttal. It's time for intelligent argument to replace this jingoism. It's now known that one of Rumsfeld's memos to his staff specifically instructed them to come up with these bumper sticker slogans. Thankfully he, like Gonzales, are no longer in office. It's time to show the rest of the Neo-con crew that we aren't as simple minded as they would like us to be. "
Jake D (Stanford Law) wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:17 PM:
" RMD: Yes, if we know that our enemy won't abide by the Geneva Conventions, that means we shouldn't -- no, the Geneva Conventions are not useless when we are faced with signatories who abide by said Conventions -- as for the police facing everyday criminals (as opposed to terrorists), all due process rules apply (police can legally lie to suspects though). Any more questions? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:18 PM:
" At least we agree about protesters being able to climb up on stage and stand directly next to the speaker is a big problem. "
tekel wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:21 PM:
" Nice photo, Scott Robertson! It might not work for T-shirts, but this will surely be an iconic image that haunts Gonzo the rest of his life...
Until something worse comes out. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:26 PM:
" Luckily, this protestor did not physically attack the former Attorney General. "
RMD (UF Law) wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:40 PM:
" @ Jake D:
Sounds like the "moral ralativism" that I hear the talking heads accuse those "liberals" of. Our grandfathers fought and died to preserve our collective honor in WWII, even as we faced the most despicable of enemies. Enemies who obviously did not follow the Geneva Conventions. Your suggestion that we stoop to the level of whatever enemy we face, blurs the lines between what makes us different from those we face. If you win the battle, but lose yourself, you've still lost. The America I will always fight for is one that acts with honor even in the face of a despicable enemy. I don't think we'll ever agree on this point.
"
Suckstobeyou wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:41 PM:
" O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
"
Roots wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:42 PM:
" Nobody had any intentions of attacking anyone it's not even relevant. He was never in danger, so why worry you paranoid idiot? This is the same fear based logic that the Bush Admin has used to justify all of their nonsense. No wonder you see things the way you do Jake, you jump to irrational conclusions based on fear? You're afraid of the world, they are all coming to get you Jake. And for good reason because you are what's wrong with the world. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:42 PM:
" Which "America" are you talking about -- the "America" I grew up in nuked women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- we can at least agree that less than 10 seconds under cellophane is not as bad as that, right? "
Alguien wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:46 PM:
" " Alguien: I am not hiding, I was not banned, and I am not a Republican. If by "troll" you mean someone with a different opinion, I guess that qualifies. "
That's right, Jake! You are not a Republican. You are a registered Independent, right wing nut that loves Bush and Cheney and condones torture.
In my book, that's much worse than being a Republican.
They banned you from TPM because your "honest questions" were disruptive. It was officially announced by the Troll Patrol.
Glad to see you found other channels to spew your vitriol...! "
Mike Rodriguez wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:48 PM:
" Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva convention. I'm sorry if you all would like them to be for some reason.
Soldiers are provided for in the Geneva convention, pithy terrorists are not.
Torture them all. They deserve it. "
RMD (UF Law) wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:49 PM:
" A failing argument Jake. You can't justify current misdeeds by pointing out previous misdeeds. Those bombs haunt America, and were a tragic and terrible decision, and will forever mar our national honor. The systematic torture and killing of our enemies at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo will do the same. "
Powkat wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:49 PM:
" Gore WON the 2000 election. It was stolen 5-4 by the Supreme Court. Kerry won the 2004 election. That one was stolen by Ken Blackwellin Ohio. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:49 PM:
" Roots: make up your mind then -- are we supposed to "connect the dots" or not -- whether this particular individual had any intentions of attacking anyone may be irrelevant, but you certainly can't be saying that it's O.K. to let anyone charge the stage / speaker?! As for "worry" I never waste any time with that -- I suggest you do the same and don't worry about me being "what's wrong with the world" too -- see, e.g. Matthew 6:5-33. "
Alguien wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:50 PM:
" " Alguien: I am not hiding, I was not banned, and I am not a Republican. If by "troll" you mean someone with a different opinion, I guess that qualifies. "
That's right, Jake! You are not a Republican. You are a registered Independent, right wing nut that loves Bush and Cheney and condones torture.
In my book, that's much worse than being a Republican.
They banned you from TPM because your "honest questions" were disruptive. It was officially announced by the Troll Patrol.
Glad to see you found other channels to spew your vitriol...! "
RMD (UF Law) wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:52 PM:
" One major discrepancy that I'm seeing is that some here seem willing to allow their enemy to determine who they are, and what they will and won't do. Others argue that we should decide who we are, and then face our enemy. "
Powkat wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:53 PM:
" Jake D, who claims on other sites to be an attorney, can't spell 'ridiculous.' Is that the result of that expensive Stanford eduction, dude? "
RMD (UF Law) wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:54 PM:
" Well Jake, the scripture has come out, and I think I'm done here. "
Quien? wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:58 PM:
" "Mike Rodriguez wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:48 PM:
" Terrorists are not protected by the Geneva convention. I'm sorry if you all would like them to be for some reason. Soldiers are provided for in the Geneva convention, pithy terrorists are not. Torture them all. They deserve it. ""
Dear Mike: Before calling someone a "TERRORIST", you have to show proof.
More than 60% of the people illegally detained in Guantanamo have NO CHARGES against them, Six years with no charges, yet we still keep them locked illegally, we torture them and don't even let them talk to their lawyers.
Our record in Human Rights is getting dangerously close to Saddam's.
Have you ever wondered how would you feel if you were detained and tortured for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Before parrotting the paranoid right wingers, STOP and THINK! "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:03 PM:
" RMD: we'll have to agree to disagree that Truman made a "tragic and terrible" decision to drop those bombs or that they "haunt" America. Maybe, someday, you will understand why the alternatives were all worse. "
Tarantula wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:06 PM:
" RMD (UF Law) - Wrong! Dropping the bomb on Heroshima was certainly the right thing to do. Conservative estimates put out casualties near 1 million for an actual invasion. The bomb killed 1/2 as many people and they were enemy deaths. I wish we could nuke the Middle East and get it over with. What a wonderful world it would be. Just like cancer, you isolated it, cut out the densest portions and irradiate the rest and then the body recovers. Secondly, I really like the question, "If it were known that a nuclear bomb was to go off in a major city today and we had an enemy combatant in custody with knowledge of the imminent event would you use torture to save the American lives?" Liberals probably wouldn't and not because they are so principled but rather because they so detest America. They protect and make excuses for the very same people that would cut off the heads of their children in front of them. I would trade 100000 terrorist lives for an American life any day. Most liberals are traitors. Hands down. "
A Loud Protestor wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:09 PM:
" I was one of the loudest and probably most obnoxious protestors at the Gonzalez speech last night:
Here are the reasons why I choose to behave in such a fashion:
1. I have one life to live and I will act any way I want to. All conservatives seem to talk about is the "Freedom" presented to all citizens, so I am fully taking advantage and acting EXACTLY how I FEEL like it. If you think my behavior is ridiculous or obnoxious then you've obviously never watched American television.
2. I am FURIOUS at Alberto. Conservatives are furious at say, Michael Moore, not because he has ever been under congressional testimony and LIED< LIED< LIED, but because they disagree with his views. It's not that I disagree with ALberto, I FREAKIN CANT stand to look at his d-bag LYING face. He deserves JAIL time, so for all his supporters out there: be glad the worst he is facing (besides Hell) is a bunch of intelligent students that refuse to let a liar and a cheat get away with such embarrasing actions.
3. I refuse to act like a robot. It is true that conservatives would NEVER act like how I chose to act. That's because they dont have a soul, a heart, a conscience. Or perhaps, they do, but nothing ever bothers them. Where in life was it written that we all have to act the same way? That's not what America is about. America is about when these slithery, cheating bastards in office do TERRIBLE things, they get their comeuppance!! Even if it's from scrappy protestors, at least we are acting like HUMAN BEINGS. Especially since judiciously they will never face the musicl. How can they face their repurcussions with a bunch of hands-in-the-lap silence?
4. I've actually worked in congress and let me tell you: they are all a bunch of RICH, OVER PRIVIELGED, SELF-CONGRATULATING, SELF-ABSORBED NARCISSISTS. I went there to work and I would spend day after day listening to ALL the BBQs, and parties and inside jokes they are share. Here is the truth about American politics: THEY dont care about the poor, the meek, the minority. It's the truth and it pisses me off and I will scream, and laugh and point and yell and throw whatever I have to let these jerk-offs know that I know they dont care and im not going to roll over, get a cubicle job, buy an SUV, have 3 babies, become like 60% of the country and be obese and get on anti-depressents for the rest of my life. Im going to yell at them and die yelling at them because they dont like me cuz IM NOT LIKE THEM: RICH, WHITE, SPOILED, EVIL.
(forgive the spelling mistakes) "
CB wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:11 PM:
" What an embarassment to our University and alumni. I dont blame the students though; they are still living a sheltered college lifestyle that does not require them to be held accountable for embarassing and unappropriate actions.
I do wish our University could be seen in the positive light it deserves. GO GATORS "
Habakkuk wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:11 PM:
" FIRST AND FOREMOST: JAKE D IS A REPUBLICAN HIJACKER/TROLL.
Do not permit him to sidetrack the conversation away from this disgraced Attorney General, Gonzo. This is his typical MO. He's a tranny as well and posts at Think Progress using about twenty monikers to avoid detection.
He's little more than an amoeba with a pulse so please don't fall prey to his chicanery.
He's been banned from most liberal blog sites and has absolutely nothing credible to add to any intelligent discussion. "
Laughing at You wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:13 PM:
" Sounds like you have small man syndrome Loud Protestor.. Stand up and fight in an intelligent way and drop the self pitty anti-white attitude.. "
Tarantula wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:18 PM:
" A Loud Protestor - You don't even know what you are mad about. You are repeating what you have been told to repeat. You are behaving how you have been directed to behave. You claim to be different when you are just like every one of your ilk. Saying the same things at the same time and only finding comfort in each other as you regularly violate tradition and common sense. In a few years, it is you that will learn the truth. It is you that will look back and say, "I was just a stupid little college kid back then" . Calling conservaives narcissists? That is just funny. "
me wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:21 PM:
" These were peaceful protests. The only people who were yelling were random people that were not involved in protests who just heckled him. The silent protests that were organized in such a fashion that we did NOT limit his freedom of speech, but rather respectfully exercised our's. What was done was no different from when college republicans silently protested Michael Moore. Can't help a few dozen loud audience members.
Maybe all of you people who say protesting is an embarassment should re-read the constitution. it's a freedom afforded to us- the right to peaceful protest. We deliberately did not plan to interrupt him-the general public did that on their own. Saying that we are sheltered college kids is ridiculous. We have our OWN opinions, most of us apart from our parents and we exercise them, unlike the rest of the apathetic youth that surrounds us at UF. "
Habakkuk wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:23 PM:
" Alguien: We know who Jake D really is, don't we? You nailed him right off the bat.
This is one sick, twisted tranny troll who's so irrelevant a human being that he spends his entire day on blogs attempting to hijack the conversation by inane comments.
He's a known Repturd Troll and is TOTALLY IGNORED on the blogs he visits.
Even when Jake D changes his name to Mr. Pee et al, his linguistic style is unmistakable and, after about two or three posts of the same ridiculous blabber, people are onto him and freeze him out totally.
DO NOT PERMIT JAKE D TO HIJACK AN OTHERWISE INTELLECTUAL THREAD. "
Yes Clinton Fired 93 Prosecutors... wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:24 PM:
" ...at the beginning of his administration and then he appointed prosecutors of his own. This is quite common. The 9 prosecutors were fired mid-term which is UNPRECEDENTED. They were fired because they would not pursue politically motivated targets. They have said this in many interviews and the information is out there; but since so many people can't seem to grasp this I have to assume they are only feeding from specific news outlets run by their dissembling masters who treat them like the rubes that they are. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:24 PM:
" me:
You reallly think rushing the stage is a "peaceful" action? I will remember that when Hillary is President. "
A Loud Protestor wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:28 PM:
" Tarantula: Re-read what I wrote, I didnt call conservatives narcissists. I called all the politicians I witnessed in Congressional action narcissists.
For both Tarantula and Laughing at You:
I spent 8 years figuring out what I am mad about. I worked in Congress like I said, so do you really believe that I dont know what Im mad about? Tarantula: what am I repeating that i heard from other people? you dont think Ive witnessed the plight of the poor and sick with my own two eyes? You dont think IVE been a part of that mess? You dont think Ive done stuff all by myself? I wasnt even sitting with any of the other protestors.
Im not even a college student, although I went for almost 7 years before finally graduating. It took so long because I am extremely motivated and smart and I did three political internships in differing parts of the country, working a full time job and going to school fulltime and volunteering. I not only fight in the intelligent ways, but also the "un-intelligent ways", I suppose.
Like I said, most Americans and certainly none of you have ever witnessed these people in action like I have. You can dog me all you want, but trust me, unless you are as rich as them, they dont care about you either, even if you are sticking up for them. THATS THE WHOLE POINT. We are ALL victims. Get a REAL education, not the school kind, but the LIFE kind. Holler. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:28 PM:
" Clinton replaced MORE than nine U.S. Attorneys after his re-election as well -- we don't know if they were fired for political reasons -- because those were never investigated. You do know that Clinton replaced the U.S. Attorney investigating Dan Rostenkowsi, right? Carter replaced the U.S. Attorney investigating two Democrats in Congress as well: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,945941,00.html "
Tarantula wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:29 PM:
" Jake D - They are trying to "Gonzales" you for disagreeing with them. Soon they will contrive a crime and protest you by bravely turning their back on you. "
patriot wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:33 PM:
" Insinuating that the protestors are classless is a baseless attack on the character of people you know nothing about. I say that standing peacefully to make a point is pretty classy. Oh, and constitutional. We are real patriots. You say we live sheltered lives? All of you students who don't have a clue about what is really happening in this government need to wake up and stop living YOUR sheltered lives.Open your mind beyond the media and do your own research.
Deciding to be silent and peaceful shows that we DO know that we must be held accountable for our actions. Otherwise we risk another Meyer incident.
The only reason two students were arrested was so they could be examples to the rest of us protestors. Another guy climbed on stage with a sign and was just asked by police to leave rather than be arrested. It's just a fear tactic used to deter even peaceful opposition. "
Nick wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:33 PM:
" Lying. Torture. Obfuscation. Mr. Gonzales does not deserve our respect. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:34 PM:
" Probably, Tarantula -- luckily, I will defend myself if attacked. "
GoodOne wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:35 PM:
" Thank you "A Loud Protestor". Gonzo does not deserve to be lecturing to anybody at any time. For a person that went to law school he "couldn't recall" an awful lot of pertinent material. At his next lecture, I would like to see the whole audience march up onstage without saying a word until he left. "
lala wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:35 PM:
" These were peaceful protests. The only people who were yelling were random people that were not involved in protests who just heckled him. The silent protests that were organized in such a fashion that we did NOT limit his freedom of speech, but rather respectfully exercised our's. What was done was no different from when college republicans silently protested Michael Moore. Can't help a few dozen loud audience members. Maybe all of you people who say protesting is an embarassment should re-read the constitution. it's a freedom afforded to us- the right to peaceful protest. We deliberately did not plan to interrupt him-the general public did that on their own. Saying that we are sheltered college kids is ridiculous. We have our OWN opinions, most of us apart from our parents and we exercise them, unlike the rest of the apathetic youth that surrounds us at UF. " "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:36 PM:
" GoodOne:
At his next lecture, I would like to see Secret Service protection for the former Attorney General. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:38 PM:
" lala = "me"? You reallly think rushing the stage is a "peaceful" action? Like I said, I will remember that when Hillary is President. "
me wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:41 PM:
" nobody rushed. it was very calm. is alberto so holy that nobody can even be in within 10 feet of him? moreover, once detained by the police, they didn't resist. very peaceful.
perhaps if they ran up, jumped and screamed in his face. but they were silent and calm. i'd say that's pretty much the definition of peaceful. "
me wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:43 PM:
" p.s. most of the protestors (the ones i know) aren't really a fan of hillary clinton but if you insist on using her as a comparison, if you did exactly what we did, i would say right on. thank god for somebody else exercising their freedom of speech. in fact, i HOPE that you do protest Hillary Clinton if you didn't agree with her. it would indicate something other than apathy. "
Tarantula wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:45 PM:
" A Loud Protestor - I am not impressed. I too started from nothing and worked my way through engineering college with 2 kids and 2 jobs. However, the garbage you spew is not true and thus I know you are full of it. I have found that the political realm has much more integrity than people give it credit for. Politicains are all called liars but rarely can either side find one outright lying even though the are stalked night and day by the media and opposition nuts looking for any kind of slip-up that can be twisted into a controversy (think Gonzales, Plame, Hallibuton ect - I think the liberal common-speak is waterboarding nowadays). Politicians understand they can never lie because it can and will destroy their career. They are taught to be genuine because people will see through a facade. They are taught by their peers to listen to the public and react accordingly. Liberals have been taught for so long through movies and music and The SImpson's how poitician's are hungry pigs corruptly feeding off of the money trough, especially Republicans, that they assume that is the way things really are. They know only what they are told. Believe it or not, most people want to do the right thing and try to be good people (unless they are frothy mouthed liberals of course), It is simply not true that politicians are narcissists that do not care about the (did you use the word "meek") poor save a tiny truly corrupt few. If had any real exposure you would know this Stop listening to Hollywood and your liberal buddies. And, stop telling me how intelligent you are as that is a clear sign that even you are insecure about your own intelligence. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. OK? "
Driver wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:45 PM:
" I read this comment thread on a computer at an American airbase in Iraq. I am deployed here on my fifth tour of duty since 2003. I took an oath to support and defend our consitiution. I wholeheartedly support these protestors right to express their opinion about an Attorney General who I feel was busy gutting the constitution I swore to uphold. Good going guys, this is only a small taste of the scorn that Gonzales deserves. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:46 PM:
" I would want similar protestors to President Hillary arrested as well -- Lee H. Oswald was "silent and calm" as well -- was that pretty much your definition of peaceful too? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:47 PM:
" Driver: you reallly think rushing the stage is a "peaceful" action? "
Montel wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:52 PM:
" me - I will protest Hillary at the ballot box. If she comes, I will hear what she has to say and I will not try to distract, intimidate or otherwise derail the event in any fashion. This is why their is a distinguished class and you are not invited. "
Steve wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:53 PM:
" As a true conservative, I am deeply ashamed that Mr. Gonzalez represented me on the world stage. His acceptance of prisoner abuse is simply unacceptable, and is a threat to our national security. If we do not treat our prisoners with respect and afford them basic human rights, we are no better than terrorists.
As a true conservative, I hope my comrades will stand in protest to The Democrats' attempts to remove our personal freedom. Freedom isn't a liveral/conservative issue; the need for freedom is universal. I thank these protestors for speaking up for my freedom just as I thank all of my relatives who fought in World War Two. "
me wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:53 PM:
" Jake D - you are talking about a specific case of a nut job. Give it up. Shooting someone from a window is not the same as peacefully demonstrating where everyone can see you clearly in a building that has police officers - uniformed and undercover. Lee H. Oswald was not a "protestor" he was a sniper from a window! What a comparison! That's ridiculous.
We have a right to protest. Constitution says so. If you don't like it, become a politican and try to limit our rights. Gonzales would like that. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:53 PM:
" GoodOne: the only way to get on the "Ignore List" is to refuse to answer my question to you when I answer every question you ask and/or resorting to personal attacks against me (see "tranny" comment above) when I don't. "
me wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:54 PM:
" Montel - we did not try to distract, intimidate or derail the event. We silently and peacefully protested. Any interruptions came from the audience and was not planned. "
v. popvli wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:55 PM:
" jake d.
your 10 seconds under cellophane question is still pointless without proper context. a person who consents to having this done to them is not being tortured. a person who has this inflicted upon them forcefully and non-consensually, or in the context of coercing information, is being tortured.
instead of bringing up the geneva conventions (nice comment rmd), al qaeda, and two nuked japanese cities, would you care to defend alberto gonzales' record specifically? care to defend his memory? care to defend the episode where he tried to coerce cooperation from a hospitalized john ashcroft? how about the "pain equivalent to death or organ failure" standard for torture? maybe you'd like to talk about peaceful non-disruptive protest; even if it was disruptive, i am immensely satisfied that AGAG was confronted with a hooded mock prisoner wearing an orange jumpsuit labelled "civil liberties." serves him right. "
Rudy2008 wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:55 PM:
" A Loud Protestor wrote:
"Im not even a college student, although I went for almost 7 years before finally graduating. It took so long because I am extremely motivated and smart"
LOL!! you sure sound motivated to me, Tommy Boy! "
me wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:56 PM:
" PS Montel - Our intention, was in fact, to give Gonzales the right to speak while also exercising our freedom of speech peacefully. Nobody planned such an interruption. The audience did that on their own. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:57 PM:
" How do you KNOW the "protesters" were unarmed? The point is that security in that instance could not know and proceeded accordingly. In a broad sense of the word, Oswald was "protesting" too -- freedom of speech does have limits -- you can falsely yell FIRE in a crowded theater either. "
Print wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:57 PM:
" UF paid a person to show up and be abused. The police agreed that's okay.
Prostitutes are often beaten.
I wouldn't show up for cash anyplace, you will probably be treated the same. "
Alguien wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:00 PM:
" Habakkuk wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:23 PM:
" Alguien: We know who Jake D really is, don't we? You nailed him right off the bat. This is one sick, twisted tranny troll who's so irrelevant a human being that he spends his entire day on blogs attempting to hijack the conversation by inane comments. He's a known Repturd Troll and is TOTALLY IGNORED on the blogs he visits. Even when Jake D changes his name to Mr. Pee et al, his linguistic style is unmistakable and, after about two or three posts of the same ridiculous blabber, people are onto him and freeze him out totally. DO NOT PERMIT JAKE D TO HIJACK AN OTHERWISE INTELLECTUAL THREAD. "
That's right HABAKKUK! We've read enough to recognize him anywhere!
Have you noticed that he even quoted the Bible in his blog??? [Matthew 6:5-33.] That's unprecedented. He's really getting desperate! I guess that entitles us to add Christian Fascist to all the other adjectives that have been applied to Jake D. in this blog.
"
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:01 PM:
" v. popvli: I would be happy to defend his record specifically, his memory in general, or even where he tried to coerce cooperation from a hospitalized John Ashcroft. As I understand what happened that evening, the Acting Attorney General refused to re-authorize program(s) which Ashcroft had previously authorized 16 times -- it was reasonable to determine whether Ashcroft even knew about this refusal -- upon learning Ashcroft knew about the refusal, Gonzales left. Next? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:03 PM:
" Print: you are equating the former Attorney General of the United States to a common prostitute?! What do you have against prostitutes? "
Rudy2008 wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:04 PM:
" What really needs to be said here is this: It seems like it doesn't matter if the speaker is a Democrat like Kerry or a Republican like AG, any public figure who is stupid enough to come to speak at UF is going to be harrassed and personally attacked. While some of the protestors at this event were civil and somewhat sane, there were the inevitable idiots that showed their backsides in a sad attempt to make it on the 6 o-clock news in true "Jackass" fashion. I don't know why people think that the constitution permits people to do "whatever they feel like". It clearly does not. It makes me wonder how long before students will be throwing rocks and bottles and there will be a need for more powerful weapons than just a simple taser. Honestly, does someone need to get shot before we calm these protests down? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:06 PM:
" I guess so, Rudy2008 -- Gonzales traveled to UF, probably knowing the threat -- just like JFK did. "
Jeannie See wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:06 PM:
" Oh no, you guys let Jake D post here. Well, keeps him away from Think Progress so I guess you guys are doing us a fovor. LOL. Thanks.
To the poster that said the protesting was an embarrassment to the school and the Gonzo should have been shown some respect.....Nope. No one in the Bush Admin deserves an ounce of respect IMO.
Examples: Abu Ghraib, Halliburton, Executive Power, Intelligent Design, Body Amor, Katrina, Waterbording. I can go on and on.
No, they do not deserve anyone's respect. They deserve a seat in front of a Judge so they can be charged with war crimes. "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:09 PM:
" jake d please link us to the video footage of a plane hitting the pentagon. I don't want to see the few frames and the confiscated and returned footage that shows absolutely nothing like a passenger plane. So please link it. Prove you are not just causing trouble but are really contributing to the conversation. PLease link the video> I can not answer about melting steel. i am no expert. However I have viewed videos my whole life so I am quite familiar with watching a plane hit the pentagon when i see one. Where is the link? None? Please join me in insisting on a clear video of that day at the pentagon.
Why are you protecting something you can not see? Don't tell me about steel, or partisan or anything. Just link the video my friend. "
v. popvli wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:14 PM:
" why would he have a document with him for reauthorization of the program, one that required the AG's signature, if all he wanted to do was inform AG ashcroft that the Acting AG had refused reauthorization? he was seeking reauthorization of the program, not merely to inform ashcroft. he was trying to go over the head of the acting AG. upon learning that ashcroft would not reauthorize the program, (not withstanding that all knew he didn't even have the authority to do so, being hospitalized and incapacitated) gonzales left. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:15 PM:
" hug the moon: I have the "frames" from said video, plus all the eyewitness testimony -- it doesn't matter, though, because even clear video of planes crashing into the WTC that day is dismissed as CGI fake and a global broadcast conspiracy too. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:16 PM:
" v. popvli: of course he was seeking reauthorization of the program(s). I'm not denying that. "
elmerg wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:17 PM:
" "Honestly, does someone need to get shot before we calm these protests down? " Rudy 2008
Stalin would have been very proud. "
Alguien wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:17 PM:
" Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 4:47 PM:
Jake D., sweetie, let's see if I can provide a final answer to your latest "honest question" to Driver;
" Driver: you reallly think rushing the stage is a "peaceful" action? "
OK, Jake: Did the potesters on stage attack anybody? Did they threaten? Did the even say anything?
NO! They just stood there. NO VIOLENCE WHATSOEVER. As far as I am concerned, that is a PEACEFUL ACTION. Proof of that is the fact that Gonzalez was able to continue reading his speeach undeterred. [The other protesters were in the audience].
Regarding your reply to GoodOne and your desire for Secret Service protection for Gonzo....
[" GoodOne: At his next lecture, I would like to see Secret Service protection for the former Attorney General. "]
I would like even it better if ther wasn't a NEXT lecture! "
you wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:21 PM:
" Rudy 2008 - In most cases of protesting and shootings, it is usually the government/police who shoots the protestors.
Find me a case of a GROUP of silent protestors taking down a speaker. Not rioters, silent protestors.
The constitution does not allow people to do whatever they feel. It does allow people to peacefully protest.
"
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:22 PM:
" hi ya Jake D. No video with a clear pic of a passenger plane hitting the pentagon?
You have a lot of energy. That would be a lot of use in trying to obtain the video. Won't you please help? If you have seen something we haven't, please share. Isn't that your obligation and duty as an American? You have a lot of passion. It would surely help. Think about it. Have you seen a clear video? Think about it my friend. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:25 PM:
" Well, allegedly, the "group" on the grassy knoll were "silent and calm" too -- again, my point is that security CANNOT know if they are unarmed, so anyone rushing the stage needs to be taken down -- unless you guys are really saying that's O.K. to do to the next Democrat President??? "
v. popvli wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:25 PM:
" jake d.
so you're not denying that he was seeking reauthorization of the program from the wrong man, who had given up his authority to reauthorize the program, who was also hospitalized and too sick to stand. mark this well, elderly and sickly lawyers, the AG might visit you in hospital and ask you to sign off on actions that the proper authorities have rejected. "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:26 PM:
" It does matter. I never said anything about the wtc, or conspiracy or anything. Just a clear vid of a plane attacking the pentagon. All those cameras. Think about it. Why no clear footage. Even if fake? I am bringing no other aspect of 911 into question. I am not saying it was neo cons or israelis or anything. I am simply in want of the clear image from one or more of the multiple cameras that were draping the pentagon on said day. Think about it. You trust your eyes or the words of others?
With respect and kindness. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:27 PM:
" hug the moon: there's no "clear video" of JFK's assassination either -- the Zapruder film is simply 16 fuzzy frames -- that didn't happen either? Do you think history began with the advent of video? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:30 PM:
" v. popvli: I am not denying that he was seeking reauthorization of the program(s). Assuming Ashcroft HAD signed off on the authorization, I think the argument can be made he was not the wrong man -- according to testimony from the events, Ashcroft had enough wits about him to forcefully and accurately state his own objections -- what else you got? "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:35 PM:
" I never asked for a video of JFK. JFK was not a building draped in 21st century technology. I appreciate your comments though please offer something useful.
Are you saying these videos do not exist? Are you saying that they are being not shown for a speacial reason? Please be clear. Do you ask yourself these questions? "
Alguien wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:37 PM:
" Jake D., sweetie, let's see if I can provide a final answer to your latest "honest question" to Driver;
" Driver: you reallly think rushing the stage is a "peaceful" action? "
OK, Jake: Did the potesters on stage attack anybody? Did they threaten anybody? Did the even say anything?
NO! They just stood there. NO VIOLENCE WHATSOEVER. As far as I am concerned, that is a PEACEFUL ACTION. Proof of that is the fact that Gonzalez was able to continue reading his speech undeterred. [The audible protesters were in the audience].
Regarding your reply to GoodOne on your desire for Secret Service protection for Gonzo....
[" GoodOne: At his next lecture, I would like to see Secret Service protection for the former Attorney General. "]
I would like even it better if there wasn't a NEXT lecture!
Driver: Sorry to hear you're in Iraq. Hang in there and keep blogging! "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:38 PM:
" lets pretend for a moment the pentagon story is a lie. How would you behave? Why? Let's just pretend. doesnt hurt to pretend. What would you do? "
Nano wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:39 PM:
" Thank you protesters for physically protesting Gonzo, in a nice, rude, polite, impolite, or otherwise fashion. The important thing is you guys got into his face.
You are the true patriots that can see our country going in the wrong direction. You are the ones with true courage. I salute you. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:40 PM:
" hug the moon:
I assume the fact that no clear video has been shown as evidence that no clear video exists -- even the best security system does not capture all angles 24/7 -- YMMV. "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:43 PM:
" I knew you had no link and had not seen any clear footage of a plane hitting the pentagon. Just like every dem, rep and independant - no one seen anything, just move along wacko. Just like the rest of us. Go ahead and invest in the eyewitnesses. Be who you need to be. Think what ever brings you comfort my friend jake d. The truth is nothing more than our own coping mechanism.
With respect and kindness.
PS You do have a lot of energy and passion that I wish you would use to really see the video.
"
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:44 PM:
" If the Pentagon story was a "lie" I would want to know where the passengers of Flight 77 are -- I would want to prosecute anyone guilty of any crime in that regard -- I would not assassinate any one over said "lie" though. "
eh wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:46 PM:
" Jake D - Lee H. Oswald was NOT a protestor. How can you even compare the protestors to Lee H. Oswald? He shot JFK from a window, hidden. The protestors were in plain view of everyone. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:46 PM:
" hug the moon: we have a security system at our church -- over 50 cameras -- they don't capture all angles 24/7 either. Seriously, you think if something's not on video, it doesn't exist?
"
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:46 PM:
" Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:40 PM:
" hug the moon: I assume the fact that no clear video has been shown as evidence that no clear video exists -- even the best security system does not capture all angles 24/7 -- YMMV. " ---give me a break. If someone drove a car into the mini mart it would be on tv across the country tyhat noight. How can you type with a straight face that the worlds most protected bulding could not pick up a giant lpane hitting it in broad daylight? Seriously my friend. You truly believe this? In your heart of hearts? Why are you doing this bidding?
"
Tarantula wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:47 PM:
" me - I can live with that. I am going to give the liberals one point here and it hurts to do this so enjoy. As far as Abu Ghraib, Bush asked AG if the methods used violated Geneva conventions. His answer was no and I believe he was being genuine and not making personal decisions about torturing anyone and was simply tring to interpret the applicable law. This is non-issue with me. As far as the attorney issue, the only thing unusual about the situation is when the attorneys were fired which is really not an issue at all. These particular attornies serve at the will of the president and it is his perogative to keep them or fire them. No rules were broken and I do no think you will want to change this rule once you have a Democrat in office. This is just more liberal nonsense being blown out of proportion. Abu Ghraib occurred before AG as was his opinion about Geneva and yet he was still approved to be the Attorney General by congress. However, someone mentioned something in this thread that actually did happen that I had forgoten all about that I can only call for lack of better term "creepy". Whether you like John Ashcroft or not, I think he is an honest guy. AG had tried to get a signature from Ashcroft having to do with some wire-tap he knew Ashcroft would not approve of while Ashcroft was still under the influence of anesthetic and after having Ashroft's security removed. I trust Ashcroft more than Gonzales. I may have to think about this a bit more. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:49 PM:
" eh: someone else claimed that the "protesters" were silent and calm -- that's why I brought up Lee H. Oswald being silent and calm too -- my point was that security CANNOT know they are unarmed, so the right action was to take them down. "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:49 PM:
" Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:44 PM:
" If the Pentagon story was a "lie" I would want to know where the passengers of Flight 77 are -- I would want to prosecute anyone guilty of any crime in that regard -- I would not assassinate any one over said "lie" though. "
I agree w/you on this. I would not want to assasinate, torture, hold without a lawyer rendition torture in a foreign country anyone involved either. I totally agree with you Jake D. Think of that! Well that is great. That tangent of saying you wouldn't want to assasinate was an odd statement to make. I never mentioned anything besides seeing a video. I am in no way associated with your comment. That was weird. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:53 PM:
" Tarantula: I don't think that there's any evidence Gonzales "knew Ashcroft would not give authorization". In fact, Ashcroft had authorized the program(s) 16 times before his surgery -- it was completely reasonable to double-check with Ashcroft since the Acting Attorney General may have been acting contrary to Ashcroft's intention -- as soon as Ashcroft indicated he was in agreement with the Acting Attorney General, Gonzales left. What exactly do you have to "re-think" about that? "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:54 PM:
" Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:46 PM:
" hug the moon: we have a security system at our church -- over 50 cameras -- they don't capture all angles 24/7 either. Seriously, you think if something's not on video, it doesn't exist? "--- Are for real comparing the security system of your church to that of the pentagon. the pentagon! I am beyond comment. Do you think your church wouldve have caught a passenger plane hitting it in the middle of the day? Heart of hearts? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:54 PM:
" hug the moon: perhaps you've missed all the rest of my posts above -- see "Oswald, Lee H." above -- can you at least answer this question: you think if something's not on video, it doesn't exist? "
v. popvli wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:55 PM:
" jake d.
the record is also clear that the visit to ashcroft wasn't made until after they were certain the acting AG had rejected reauthorization. that still makes ashcroft the wrong man, and the acting AG the right man. only after comey said no did they gamble on ashcroft. that suggests to me and most people that they were just trying to get their way regardless of proper procedure, and that after they tried it the right way and failed, they resorted to something dirty and improper (which also failed) "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:57 PM:
" We have a fairly advanced video system -- if the plane hit the church from the north or south, none of our cameras could capture the impact -- is that what you are asking? "
hug the moon wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:58 PM:
" This one is one video. There were plenty of cameras a rolling in all directions at that moment. Do you disagree? Do yuo think they had a surveilence failure at the moment of the attasck? Do you? Please answer that. Comparing an apple to an orange does not make the apple an orange. "
eh wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:59 PM:
" Jake D - I understand, I read all the comments.
You simply cannot compare the two because Lee H. Oswald had no outlet with which to be peaceful and silent. Shooting someone is not peaceful. Standing calmly with your backs turned and not speaking is. Lee H. Oswald was not a protestor. He was an assassin. These people were in plain view and there were plain-clothes officers behind the scenes and near the stage to protect Alberto Gonzales.
They made no indication of a threat. Walking on a stage might be unorthodox but it's not terrorism. It's just violation of a norm but some cleancut looking person sitting in the audience sitting down calmly listening to the speech would honestly be able to pull off an assassination better than someone on the stage in front of everyone. Usually in high-risk venues, they look in your bags and pat you down. I don't know why these security precautions were not taken. "
Ian at College Colosseum wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:00 PM:
" They should have just tased everyone.
http://www.collegecolosseum.com "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:01 PM:
" v. popvli:
If Ashcroft had signed off on the program (for the 17th time), showing the same lucidity and resolve that Comey testified he showed, how exactly does that make him the "wrong" man? His signature on the reauthorization, alone, arguably reinstates his authority as Attorney General -- to be safe, maybe Gonzales had with him a separate document reinstating Ashcroft? Still not sure how you can make the argument he would have been the "wrong" man had he signed. "
v. popvli wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:02 PM:
" jake d.
see the frontline episode that aired in october about constitutional excesses in this administration. ashcroft authorized this program 16 times, but without knowing all the details of the program. when comey and goldsmith and others started digging around and exposed some of the details to ashcroft, he changed his mind about the program. only after these details (still classified) were discovered and made known to senior justice officials did objections begin. as i understand it, ashcroft, after learning these details and hearing these objections, changed his mind about the program. there was nearly a revolt at justice over them, tons of senior officials and even fbi director mueller were ready to resign over it.
"
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:04 PM:
" eh: I completely agree that simply "[s]tanding calmly with your backs turned and not speaking" is peaceful -- both of the students arrested did more than that -- for the last time, hopefully, security CANNOT know if they were unarmed and did the right thing. "
Alguien wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:10 PM:
" GUYS! GUYS!!! Havent you figured out Jake D.'s modus operandi yet????
His motto is "If you can't convince them, confuse them!"
Save your energy for worthy causes and stop hyepr-analyzing the chances of the surveillance cameras in his Church would capture a plane!
Those cameras are probably there to warn the public when the RAPTURE is IMMINENT! "
v. popvli wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:13 PM:
" jake d.,
if you're still not clear on this, then maybe you should ask arlen specter. he lit into gonzales over it in congressional testimony. whether ashcroft was lucid or clear with his response as described in testimony is irrelevant; he'd been in surgery and under anesthesia; he was under the influence of mind-altering substances and pain killers. he was hospitalized and incapacitated. i can sign things and speak lucidly from the hospital; it doesn't mean i'll be getting paid by my employer for working that day. the duties of the AG cannot be fulfilled by a man hospitalized and recovering from surgery. asking a man to assume those duties, while he is in that state, and because you're not willing to accept his duly appointed substitute's judgement, is frankly despicable. "
Habakkuk wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:14 PM:
" I see Jake D has totally hijacked this thread to a JFK assassination thread - don't permit him to pull your strings like that.
If he refuses to remain on topic, then freeze him out totally.
Now back to Abu Gonzo please! "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:15 PM:
" v. popvli:
I have seen the Frontline special. Are you claiming that Gonzales KNEW Ashcroft had changed his mind about the program(s) before going to the hospital? No one that I know has made that claim, so I'd be interested in your evidence in that regard. "
Habakkuk wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:16 PM:
" If nothing else (and there is nothing else), Jake D is creative in his psychobabble and gets to jerk people's chains, provided they "bite" and permit it.
Now back to Abu Gonzo's pathetic performance at UF.... "
rugby wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:17 PM:
" what a frightened little child jake d is. there's only one bigger wimp in america and that's george w. bush. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:18 PM:
" I thought the topic was about the performance of "Protesters arrested at Gonzales speech"? I'm happy to discuss whatever, as long as you remain civil and answer my questions too. "
habakkuk wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:19 PM:
" Oswald's gone and so is JFK and they are not the topic of this blog. I'm surprised Jake D didn't attempt to drag Bill Clinton into this discussion, as his modus operandi on other blog sites where he's been banned.
Back to Abu Gonzo now... "
Rudy2008 wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:19 PM:
" We need Jerry Springer to come host our next political forum. Seems like that would allow the audience react in true UF style. Schools like Harvard and Princeton have class.. UF has got a$$. Bring yer tasers, y'all!
The point is, you may not like Alberto Gonzales or John Kerry. But can you all at least act with some dignity? "
DukeHorn wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:20 PM:
" Kudos to the UF students who have
I guess those conservatives that oppose protests are the ones that said the same thing back in the 60s.
"
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:22 PM:
" DukeHorn: I already agreed that simply "[s]tanding calmly with your backs turned and not speaking" is a peaceful protest -- will you agree that both of the students arrested did more than that? "
v. popvli wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:23 PM:
" jake d.
see below. "the week before" refers to the last week before AG ashcroft went into the hospital, i think. i'll reread the article just to make sure.
"Comey told the committee that he and Ashcroft the week before had determined the classified program he declined to name Tuesday should not be authorized and had communicated that to the White House."
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/15/ashcroft.nsa/index.html
also, i forgot to mention that ashcroft's wife had banned all phone calls and visitors (that means alberto gonzales too), and ashcroft's wife was the one who called comey and goldsmith asking for their help after she found out that card & gonzales were on their way.
would you visit a sick man's room whose wife didn't want visitors expecting him to reauthorize a program that affects the entire nation? when he's already given up his authority and has made no sign or indication that he's ready to reassume it? "
habakkuk wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:23 PM:
" Dignity begets dignity; lies beget ridicule. This AG lied in our faces and then feigned amnesia when asked pertinent questions. I hardly classify that as one who deserves even a modicum of respect - people are judged by their actions and their experience, Rudy2008 which is precisely why the protestors were totally in synchrony with what this speaker deserved. "
rugby wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:24 PM:
" ha jake d. the little scared wimp. so afraid america is going to lose to a bunch of cave dwelling radicals. needs those big strong manly toe-tapping republicans to protect him. poor jake, just a bedwetting fool. "
Ben S. wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:27 PM:
" Well done, UF! I'm glad to see there are some citizens who are paying attention and who care about human rights.
"
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:29 PM:
" v. popvli:
I am not disputing that Comey and Ashcroft had determined the classified program(s) should not be re-authorized (the day Ashcroft went into the hospital). What I am disputing is that Gonzales KNEW Ashcroft had so determined -- Comey may have communicated that to the White House, but that's not exactly the same as hearing it straight from Ashcroft himself -- and, yes, I would you visit a sick man's room whose wife didn't want visitors if that was the only way I could re-authorize program(s) affecting the security of the entire nation. Next question? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:30 PM:
" rugby: you still haven't answered my question: By "child" you mean 75-year old adult? "
rugby wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:31 PM:
" jake d, your kneepads are worn out. cheney doesn't like the way you suck him. better watch out, cheney could have you sent to gitmo in no time. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:31 PM:
" Ben S.: you support the two students who were ARRESTED for rushing the stage? Would you support them if they shot Gonzales? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:32 PM:
" That's fine, rugby, if you'd rather not participate in a civil discussion, I certainly can't force you to do so. "
rugby wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:36 PM:
" by child i mean a whimpering little fool who spends all of his time crying on online forums about liberals and how frightened he is of the cave-dwelling radicals who are about as likely to establish a caliphate in this country as you are to face down any real danger without crapping your pants. "
Tarantula wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:39 PM:
" I am a complete moron and will burn in hell, but I really don't care b/c I get such a kick out of posting on these boards. Oh yeah, my daughter just had another abortion. Damnit, I need to pay more attention to my kids than these dam message boards! "
v. popvli wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:42 PM:
" jake d.
i think that what gonzales knew or didn't know is sort of irrelevant, since it's fairly clear that he wasn't acting on his own initiative (didn't have authority as white house counsel). since he had a reauthorizaiton document with him, he was put up to this by bush or cheney or addington or someone. and they at the white house knew that it was both ashcroft and comey in agreement who had reached this determination.
even if gonzales didn't hear the rejection straight from ashcroft, it still goes to show that gonzales was a tool, and the instigators of this episode were willing to subvert the authority of the duly appointed head of justice by coercing cooperation from a sick man. "
Amminadab wrote on Nov 20, 2007 6:55 PM:
" Thank God for student protests. They can save America.
Jake D, et al..... get a life. Your lack of grammar and spelling irregularities show a lack of education. Your reliance upon red-herrings shows a general lack of logical reasoning ability.
"
Your Daddy wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:00 PM:
" Protesters = Hypocritical, Self Absorbed, Attention Seeking trust fund babies. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:01 PM:
" I do miss my secretary, that's for sure -- maybe if the Independent Florida Alligator starts a thread about proper grammer for on-line forums, we can discuss that there -- until then, we are stuck with "Protesters arrested at Gonzales speech". "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:04 PM:
" Allow me to re-post what T-Rex already wrote: " What a shame and disgrace. UF has got to do something about this. I do not like Clinton, who actually is a bad guy, but when he was here it never crossed my mind to try to divert the focus of the event to myself or disrespect him in public and embarrass my University. Meyers already destroyed Q&A and who knows how much longer until UF is known as the school to avoid speaking at unless you want to deal with self-absorbed liberal idiots trolling for attention. Insane liberals are always welcome because conservatives would never do anything so infantile and disgraceful. Disrupting public events, physically intimidating invited speakers and making public discourse impossible is not "free speech" so please do not apply benevolent terms to these groups of truly pathetic people. " I could not have said it better (hopefully, Tex used proper grammar as well. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:09 PM:
" University Police Lieutenant Stacey Ettel says the two students, Kevin Hachey and Richard Gutierrez, were charged with disrupting a public event on school grounds. Ten minutes into the speech, Hachey and Gutierrez rose from their seats in the back of the auditorium and rushed down each aisle dressed in orange with hoods over their heads, resembing the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. Printed on the front of their orange shirts were the words "Civil Liberties". The two climbed up onto the stage and stood right next to Gonzales. A mixture of cheers and boos erupted in the auditorium and Gonzales stopped speaking. The commotion continued for a few minutes as police escorted the pair out of the auditorium. Then another pair of similarly dressed protestors walked down the aisles but they were stopped by officials before being able to climb up on stage. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:12 PM:
" Gainesville resident Jackie Betz and Jacksonville resident Glenda Allen were also ejected. They applauded Hachey and Gutierrez as they were put into the back of the police cruiser. "I think that it's marvelous. They are my heros. I love you! I'll mary both of you as soon as you get out of jail! Thanks guys! Great Job!" Betz said. Back inside the Phillips Center for the Performing Arts, Gonzales was heckled throughout his speech and the Question and Answer session following it. Gonzales' appearance was the first at the university by a high-profiled individual since a UF student was Tasered on Sept. 17 at a speech by Sen. John Kerry. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:14 PM:
" Apparently, Gainesville resident Jackie Betz is either (a) ordained minister offering to perform a "gay marriage" and/or (b) into polygamy. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:18 PM:
" I am reminded of the Code Pink wacko who assaulted Condi Rice, waving bloody hands in front of her face. I don't recall any right-wing wackos doing that to Bill Clinton. "
Nick wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:20 PM:
" Meltzer : "Even if you don't agree with Gonzales, treat the man with some respect. Despite his poor handling of his office, he has acheived a lot more than anyone who was deriding him tonight, and did not deserve to be treated like that"
Is this some sort of a joke? Nazis were executed at the end of ww2 for engaging in the sort of crimes - torture, abductions and executions, war crimes, invasions and genocide, etc that Gonzales has proudly advocated. For the head of the legal system to be such a despicably vile criminal is what one might expect from a brutal third world terrorist dictatorship, not a nation who thinks of itself as a free, lawful and democratic nation.
At the very least, Gonzales should be spending the remainder of his life in federal prison. Or is the unprovoked killing of one million noncombatant citizens of Iraq including the deaths of over 500 thousand children under the age of 5 not sufficiently criminal in your eyes? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:27 PM:
" Was Truman nuking women and children not sufficiently criminal in your eyes? "
Jeannie See wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:39 PM:
" Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 5:10 PM:
" Jeannie See: Freedom of Speech for everyone but me? "
Shakey, your only mission is to derail the threads. Have you informed everyone of your Korean war experience yet? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:43 PM:
" No one has asked -- YOU were the one who asked above "Oh no, you guys *LET* Jake D post here"? (Emphasis Added). "
Buck Fush wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:46 PM:
" Jake D. was kicked from Thinkprogress for being a spamming idiot, don't respond to the scum. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:48 PM:
" Sorry for any confusion, but my question was directed towards "Facts". "
Joe wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:52 PM:
" The USA is becoming a police state, thank to that Mexican fascist.
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html "
Jeannie See wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:57 PM:
" Buck Fush wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:46 PM:
" Jake D. was kicked from Thinkprogress for being a spamming idiot, don't respond to the scum. "
LMAO. Yeah, guess he feels that since he can't convert us dirty older fu*king hippies he'll have to make due with the up and coming.
"
Tired of Warmongering wrote on Nov 20, 2007 8:19 PM:
" A person's success or worth is not determined by the positions they have held, but by their morals and ideals, the way they live, and the way they treat others. Gonzalez needs to be told that he is wrong, both in what he has done, and the actions of the people he supports. The protesters showed honesty and courage.
In years to come Gonzalez will be remembered, just as those who served under Hitler will be--as monsters. "
ronjazz wrote on Nov 20, 2007 8:32 PM:
" Jake D. hasn't tired of his lies and spam, I see. Too bad you have to suffer the indignities of his treason. I, for one, wish that Gonzales had been arrested for his crimes against the Constitution, rather than arresting protestors for excercizing their first-amendment rights. You rightards are such cowards, even a woman waving reddened hands at our lame SecState is accused of assault, while bush murders thousands of women and children in their beds. And if somebody takes a shot at Gonzales, I hope their aim is true. He has done more damage to this country than Bin Laden. "
ronjazz wrote on Nov 20, 2007 8:36 PM:
" It's best to ignore Jake D, as he does nothing but lie. Conservatives have perfected the art of lying and selling the lie. Fortunately, their reign of terror is nearly over. Gonzales' treatment today was just the introduction to how rightwing liars will be treated by all real American patriots. "
barfly wrote on Nov 20, 2007 8:49 PM:
" Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 7:27 PM:
" Was Truman nuking women and children not sufficiently criminal in your eyes? "
These women and children had been training for a possible invasion for months, and were prepared to exact as much damage as possible to US troops. So no, it wasn't criminal to nuke enemy combattants. I'd have thought a veteran would have known that. Whenever Jake trots out WW2 analogies ,you know he's scraping the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.
"
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 8:53 PM:
" barfly: please take that up with RMD (UF Law) who wrote on Nov 20, 2007 3:49 PM: " Those bombs haunt America, and were a tragic and terrible decision, and will forever mar our national honor. The systematic torture and killing of our enemies at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo will do the same. " "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 8:57 PM:
" Lastly, the legal definition of "assault" does not include physical contact (that is "battery") but rather the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force -- intent to cause violence by the perpetrator is not necessary -- some States also define assault as an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. If anyone NOT on the "Ignore List" has a question about that, or how that applied to the Condi Rice assault, please let me know. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:04 PM:
" Of course, this was just HYPOTHETICAL, right? "if somebody takes a shot at Gonzales, I hope their aim is true." I guess it's a good thing that Lee H. Oswald's aim (and/or those on the grassy knoll) was true . . . "
AluminAlaska wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:09 PM:
" There are times when one is very proud of one's almamater. I congratulate all the protestors and thank them. To think that UofF paid this creep $40,000 is rather disgusting. As for AG's achievments the powerful elite are always happy to have a token kiss their collective behinds. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:12 PM:
" AluminAlaska: did you read the comments of alun who are disgusted by the protestors? Do you "congratulate" Kevin Hachey and Richard Gutierrez, were arrested and charged with disrupting a public event on school grounds? What happened to PEACEFUL protests of the 70's? "
sunshine wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:12 PM:
" It looks like this blog has become dominated by a troll and he's been frozen out. Way to go! Jake D is left dialoguing with himself which is symptomatic of his psychiatric disease. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:16 PM:
" This Thursday, November 22nd, will mark the 44th aniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas. Texas -- people like ronjazz back then wished that JFK had been arrested for alleged crimes against the Constitution and "if somebody takes a shot" at Kennedy, they were hoping their aim was true as well -- disgusting. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:18 PM:
" sunshine (unless YOU are a figment of my imagination too): it doesn't matter to me if people stop posting. "
Teiresias wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:22 PM:
" "Disrupting a public event?" I'd really like to see the statute on this one. I'd also love to be the lawyer who challenges it and gets the law thrown out as unconstitutional. What a frigging joke! But, then again, this IS the bush administration and we've seen just how much they know (or care) about the constitution. "
Get real wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:26 PM:
" OK, kiddies, for those of you who are b*tching about the fact that your dear, sweet, Alberto was interrupted, its time to get real. No one pays any attention to polite discourse (witness Ann Coulter). Not only is it time to be impolite with these madmen, its time to get their a**es thrown out of office and under the nearest bus! Grow up you whiny rethuglican college brats and realize that this is war. "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:26 PM:
" Teiresias: you think University Police, or local ordinances, are being directed or implemented by the Bush Administration? Do you also think Karl Rove had a laser beam in space to direct hurricanes? "
Jake D wrote on Nov 20, 2007 9:27 PM:
" Where you involved in handing these out 44 years ago in Dallas, Texas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wanted_for_treason.jpg "
Ashamed Gator wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:11 PM:
" It's been over 20 years since I graduated from U of F. I believe a campus is a place for thoughts to be shared and discussed. But I cannot condone providing a venue for a man who had to resign in shame, who can not call lies what they are but rather missteps, and for my school to provide him $40,000 for the trouble. That is your money, students think about it. I am ashamed to be a graduate. For the school - don't ask to solicit any more funds from me, to mention my school, or even wear my ring. It's clear you have enough money to throw around. My reasons are not political - it is from the sheer fact that today - here in our own country - we actually don't discuss why torture is wrong, we instead talk about what kind of torture and how much is enough. When did we lose our soul? Was it somewhere in between the 45th reality TV show, some national championship titles, or just the fact the overwhelming embarrassment of it all has finally made complacency the order of the day? Thanks to Mr. Gonzalez, his stumbles are now funded in part by the University of Florida. Shame on the Student Government, and all of us who even take any other side on this issue. "
GoGators wrote on Nov 20, 2007 10:51 PM:
" Historians for over 60 years have been saying that torture is counterproductive. Also, anyone tortured can never be convicted of a crime, because the evidence was obtained through TORTURE. Also, when we sign an international law, convention, or UN Charter---it becomes the law of the USA. Also I read a lot about the Padilla case and the only actual evidence I heard against him was that he visited a website that dealt with a dirty bomb. I could have done that out of curiosity! "
Tarantula wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:21 PM:
" GoGators - You said, "Also I read a lot about the Padilla case and the only actual evidence I heard against him was that he visited a website that dealt with a dirty bomb. I could have done that out of curiosity!" - You are an idiot GoGators. Where are all of these nims crawling out from? Geez! "
T-Rex wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:26 PM:
" Thanks Jake D for the respect. I see I helped start a firestorm that has been burning all day. "
никто wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:31 PM:
" Jake D: Stick to ideas and arguments instead of typos...if possible "
Sentinel wrote on Nov 20, 2007 11:41 PM:
" I have to take issue with T-Rex’s claim that “conservatives would never do anything so infantile and disgraceful….Disrupting public events, physically intimidating invited speakers and making public discourse impossible.” I attended a speech at the O’Dome in 1988 where Vladimir Posner, speaker for the Soviet Union, was a guest. All through the speech, conservative students booed him, frequently interrupted him. Two of them brought pictures of wounded Afghan civilians, and some of them put up a huge banner reading “THANKS MR. REAGAN FOR STOPPING COMMUNISM.” While I didn’t agree with the USSR’s policies, these conservatives showed a total lack of decorum and respect toward an invited guest. When liberals act in this fashion, conservatives are quick to condemn them, yet they have no problem exhibiting the same behavior when it suits them. "
Tarantula wrote on Nov 21, 2007 12:11 AM:
" I am sure there must be times when immature and obnoxious conservatives have exhibited liberal like behavior in the past. I saw Bill Clinton, Gorbachev, The senior editor of High Times magazine, and Ralph Nader and the only outburst I remember was a bunch of liberals whining about "The Night Shaft" (don't ask). Look, the fact is that conservatives are generally the grown-ups in the room. They want to hear what the opposition has to say especially when they are in a position of power. Conservatives try to treat people with respect and dignity even if they do not agree with them. Liberals are the kids in the room. They generally have an overdeveloped id and a strong need to have attention directed at them. Without an ounce of integrity they often use forums inolving highly visible people to attract attention to themselves from as many people as possible all while blaming the guest for their behavior and claiming benevolence in the contrived purpose that they want others to believe they serve. "
Anthony wrote on Nov 20, 2007 2:29 AM: