Obama's Margin of Error in the Polls

[Cancel7]

Relax. No one said that or suggested it. Yes, there are plenty of civil liberties violations that can be laid squarely at the feet of the Bush Administration, but the arrests made at the RNC convention in NYC cannot be. The responsible parties are the City of New York, the Mayor, the Police Department and the Commissioner.

Additionally, who was responsible for pulling people out of Bush speaking events? Usually, it's the Secret Service. The very people that established the "hard security zone" at the Pepsi Center that kept the protest zones far from the sight and sound of the delegates.

I somewhat agree, except that I'm more suspicious. Bloomberg, at that time a Republican, worked very hard to get the RNC to hold the convention here. I guess I find it difficult to buy that they had NO input in security arragements, including where protests were allowed and were to be handled. The same goes for the dems at the pepsi center. And why did the SS all of a sudden become so hard assed about tshirts when bush took office? Again, I suspect there was some input there.

As far as relaxing, I know I should. Sorry. I just get lit up so fast lately by republicans who in my opinion layed down for seven years while this administration crapped all over the consititution and even the geneva conventions, and oh, all of a sudden they woke up. I wish I could control it better. I don't hate damo or anything, but i do find him infuriating.

 

[Damocles]

Relax. No one said that or suggested it. Yes, there are plenty of civil liberties violations that can be laid squarely at the feet of the Bush Administration, but the arrests made at the RNC convention in NYC cannot be. The responsible parties are the City of New York, the Mayor, the Police Department and the Commissioner.

Additionally, who was responsible for pulling people out of Bush speaking events? Usually, it's the Secret Service. The very people that established the "hard security zone" at the Pepsi Center that kept the protest zones far from the sight and sound of the delegates.

Again, this is total garbage. If St. Paul can tell them where to take it and that Liberties matter, then so could Denver so long as it was on public property. As well, the DNC, could pressure the city to allow for this *instead, as I have stated, they chose the venue then pressured the opposite*.

The city cannot dictate the zone on the Pepsi Center, or on Invesco because they are private property. The lawsuits aim at the wrong target, as often lawsuits do. This is passing the buck. Dungheap believes in the perfection of attorneys in hitting the correct target when filing lawsuits.

They believed, wrongly, that Denver had some say in that. The ruling actually came down... "No, it is private property." Denver doesn't have the ability to dictate a closer zone, nor a further one. The court ruled because it is private property the usage grants the renter the ability to set the zone wherever they wish.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, this is total garbage. If St. Paul can tell them where to take it and that Liberties matter, then so could Denver so long as it was on public property. As well, the DNC, could pressure the city to allow for this *instead, as I have stated, they chose the venue then pressured the opposite*.

The city cannot dictate the zone on the Pepsi Center, or on Invesco because they are private property. The lawsuits aim at the wrong target, as often lawsuits do. This is passing the buck. Dungheap believes in the perfection of attorneys in hitting the correct target when filing lawsuits.

They believed, wrongly, that Denver had some say in that. The ruling actually came down... "No, it is private property." Denver doesn't have the ability to dictate a closer zone, nor a further one. The court ruled because it is private property the usage grants the renter the ability to set the zone wherever they wish.

You have little idea what you are talking about.

First of all, the litigation was about restrictions on public fora surrounding the private property of the Pepsi Center, specifically, Chopper Circle, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, and 12th Streets, and Speer Boulevard and Auraria Parkway. It's got nothing to do with whether the Pepsi Center is private property or not (also, Invesco is public property). The lawsuit is aimed at 1) determining whether the public property surrounding the Pepsi Center could be closed to protesters and 2) if so, whether the designated protest zones were legitimate alternatives.

The court did not rule that the Pepsi Center was private property and that the City of Denver did not have the ability to dictate a closer zone or a further zone. What the court actually ruled, was that the security zone established by the Secret Service, which included public property that would otherwise be open to public demonstrations, was justified for security purposes and that the closure of public areas by the Secret Service and the City of Denver was legitimate. Further, the court ruled that the protest zones were one of several adequate alternative channels for the protest groups to exercise their first amendment rights.

Here is the opinion for those that are interested in actually learning what the issue were (its a large pdf):

http://www.talkleft.com/media/acludenver.pdf

 

[Damocles]

You have little idea what you are talking about.

First of all, the litigation was about restrictions on public fora surrounding the private property of the Pepsi Center, specifically, Chopper Circle, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, and 12th Streets, and Speer Boulevard and Auraria Parkway. It's got nothing to do with whether the Pepsi Center is private property or not (also, Invesco is public property). The lawsuit is aimed at 1) determining whether the public property surrounding the Pepsi Center could be closed to protesters and 2) if so, whether the designated protest zones were legitimate alternatives.

The court did not rule that the Pepsi Center was private property and that the City of Denver did not have the ability to dictate a closer zone or a further zone. What the court actually ruled, was that the security zone established by the Secret Service, which included public property that would otherwise be open to public demonstrations, was justified for security purposes and that the closure of public areas by the Secret Service and the City of Denver was legitimate. Further, the court ruled that the protest zones were one of several adequate alternative channels for the protest groups to exercise their first amendment rights.

Here is the opinion for those that are interested in actually learning what the issue were (its a large pdf):

http://www.talkleft.com/media/acludenver.pdf

Ah, I see. You are talking about a secondary suit that was not dismissed. That ruled that the city could limit access to the public property surrounding it. (One I disagree with again, and would wish the city would be more willing to uphold rights.)

However, that changes nothing about the freedom cages on the private property that the Recreate '68 group says, "Nobody will enter that", nor does it change who has control over placement of those said cages on that property. Hint... It isn't the Secret Service, and it isn't the city...

The first lawsuit that was dismissed for the reason I portrayed and was in fact ruled exactly the way I stated. The people of "Recreate 68" filed it against the city in their ignorance and were denied after being carried through the rings for about 3 weeks, suddenly finding out they filed in the wrong direction and filing against the private entity would be fruitless.

You should have hears Spagnuola on the radio this morning whining about it.

 

[Cancel7]

Ah, I see. You are talking about a secondary suit that was not dismissed. That ruled that the city could limit access to the public property surrounding it. (One I disagree with again, and would wish the city would be more willing to uphold rights.)

However, that changes nothing about the freedom cages on the private property that the Recreate '68 group says, "Nobody will enter that", nor does it change who has control over placement of those said cages on that property. Hint... It isn't the Secret Service, and it isn't the city...

The first lawsuit that was dismissed for the reason I portrayed and was in fact ruled exactly the way I stated. The people of "Recreate 68" filed it against the city in their ignorance and were denied after being carried through the rings for about 3 weeks, suddenly finding out they filed in the wrong direction and filing against the private entity would be fruitless.

You should have hears Spagnuola on the radio this morning whining about it.

Damo, you just got skewered, give it up. I don’t know why you even bother arguing with him, he always makes you look like a fool. I only argued with him, and this was the first time ever, because you had my blood pressure so far up I was hopping. Normally I just say, you know what, I don’t need a piece of that. And walk away. Take note.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ah, I see. You are talking about a secondary suit that was not dismissed. That ruled that the city could limit access to the public property surrounding it. (One I disagree with again, and would wish the city would be more willing to uphold rights.)

However, that changes nothing about the freedom cages on the private property that the Recreate '68 group says, "Nobody will enter that", nor does it change who has control over placement of those said cages on that property. Hint... It isn't the Secret Service, and it isn't the city...

The first lawsuit that was dismissed for the reason I portrayed and was in fact ruled exactly the way I stated. The people of "Recreate 68" filed it against the city in their ignorance and were denied after being carried through the rings for about 3 weeks, suddenly finding out they filed in the wrong direction and filing against the private entity would be fruitless.

You should have hears Spagnuola on the radio this morning whining about it.

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit mentioned above:

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF COLORADO,
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE,
AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT OF COLORADO,
AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS,
CODEPINK,
ESCUELA TLATELOLCO CENTRO DE ESTUDIOS,
LARRY HALES,
GLEN MORRIS,
RECREATE 68,
ROCKY MOUNTAIN PEACE & JUSTICE CENTER,
DAMIAN SEDNEY,
TENT STATE UNIVERSITY,
TROOPS OUT NOW COALITION, and
UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE

Could you provide support for anything you posted on this issue? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Damocles]

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit mentioned above:




Could you provide support for anything you posted on this issue? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Again, there was more than one. Don't be such a 'tard. The first lawsuit, after several weeks of runarounds, was dismissed by the judge for the issue I stated. Of course I'm going by what the lawyers on in the afternoon on KHOW are talking about, but they're lawyers, what would they know about courts and stuff?

 

[Damocles]

I love when people who aren't local, pretend that they are somehow getting MORE news than the locals when it is about local issues....

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, there was more than one. Don't be such a 'tard. The first lawsuit, after several weeks of runarounds was dismissed by the judge for the issue I stated.

Then certainly you would have no trouble providing a link indicating the existence of such a lawsuit and its dismissal. Please provide it at your convenience.

 

[Damocles]

Show me any supporting law that would allow Denver to decide where the freedom cages go on private property. It doesn't exist. Hence the dismissal of the case where they tried to get the freedom cages moved near the entrance by forcing Denver to do it.

 

[Damocles]

Then certainly you would have no trouble providing a link indicating the existence of such a lawsuit and its dismissal. Please provide it at your convenience.

I would because most sites are blocked from work now, therefore I have limited access to such things. However, the radio isn't and it is where I am getting the information. Well, that and directly from the Spagnoula (however you spell his name), spokesman of the "Recreate '68" group.

 

[Bonestorm]

I love when people who aren't local, pretend that they are somehow getting MORE news than the locals when it is about local issues....

I love it when people are presented an abundance of evidence that they are dead fucking wrong insist they they are right because they heard something or other on the local talk radio.

Additionally, the DNC convention is something of a national issue. I heard somewhere that it was such a big deal that it was designated a "National Special Security Event" or something, which got the Secret Service involved.

 

[Bonestorm]

I would because most sites are blocked from work now, therefore I have limited access to such things. However, the radio isn't and it is where I am getting the information. Well, that and directly from the Spagnoula (however you spell his name), spokesman of the "Recreate '68" group.

OK, anytime you want to provide it is fine by me.

 

[Damocles]

I like the "Tent State University" guys the best. They'll set up their tents in the freedom cage every night, leave every day to protest and listen to music. It's going to be like a week-long Woodstock with less showers.

 

[Damocles]

I see now where my misunderstanding was. They first expanded their lawsuit to attempt to force the city to expand the cage area and to allow them access to the delegates, that part was rejected because of the private ownership issue, the City doesn't have the capability to move or expand the zone. The final ruling on the lawsuit was, well 1st Amendment is not curtailed because the cage is not specific to content as well as the parade routes, the protesters lost. Which sucks, IMO.

The way Spagnuolo talked about it, I thought there were separate lawsuits. Definitely my bad.

Whether the mini-gitmo exists is all on the City, where the freedom cage (not the same thing as the mini-gitmo) exists on the property of the venue is all on the DNC or whomever is renting the venue in question.

 

[CanadianKid]

I see now where my misunderstanding was. They first expanded their lawsuit to attempt to force the city to expand the cage area and to allow them access to the delegates, that part was rejected because of the private ownership issue, the City doesn't have the capability to move or expand the zone. The final ruling on the lawsuit was, well 1st Amendment is not curtailed because the cage is not specific to content as well as the parade routes, the protesters lost. Which sucks, IMO.

The way Spagnuolo talked about it, I thought there were separate lawsuits. Definitely my bad.

Whether the mini-gitmo exists is all on the City, where the freedom cage (not the same thing as the mini-gitmo) exists on the property of the venue is all on the DNC or whomever is renting the venue in question.

We got Damocles to admit that he sucks.... Hooray!

Besides that point....

Obama needs to keep on hammering McCain as Bush's 3rd term....

Thats the only way to beat back the racist white voters like Damocles and Superfreak....

CK

 

[leaningright]

If Obama loses, there will be all kinds of hand-wringing about how he was "too young" or "untested," or "too exotic," or had too many controversial "friends," or alienated his base w/ the rush to the middle, or whatever.

If Obama loses, given the current political climate, it's because he's black. Period.

I absolutely disagree with this.