Does she need better security?

[MrsSpringsteen]

They should have tazed her

And why doesn't this thread have 5 stars yet? Did you forget or are you just slacking?

 

[BVS]

And why doesn't this thread have 5 stars yet? Did you forget or are you just slacking?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It's not funny, I am on pins and needles waiting

 

[diamond]

you guys are just being mean.

dbs

 

[BVS]

you guys are just being mean.

dbs

What, not enough alters to make it 5 stars?

Seriously if you spent half the time on facts and real compasion that you do on alters, demonizing the left, posting pictures, avoiding questions, and condemning people; you might actually be good at discussing politics.

 

[ShipOfFools]

Yes, there needs to be better security. That protester could have harmed Condi, and given the choice she would have.

However, as far as the war protester is concerned, that was a cheap way of making a statement.

 

[BVS]

and given the choice she would have.

Oh, please! You don't know that...

 

[Diemen]

Yes, there needs to be better security. That protester could have harmed Condi, and given the choice she would have.

Um, no. She did have the choice, and she didn't.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

The Australian Prime Minister John Howard gets that sort of treatment every morning on his morning walk. He's got a few bodyguards around but he's always being abused by somebody, or kids rush up. Or alternative comedians like the Chaser in bunny suits. One teenage kid rushed up and hugged him while holding a screwdriver in one memorable incident. We're a laissez faire society

 

[joyfulgirl]

Our govt officials should be protected against potentially crazy people, yes of course.

And yet, at the same time, this administration has been so protected from public dissent that they are completely disconnected from the people they are supposed to be representing.

So I'm glad someone got in Condi's face and called her a war criminal, and I'm also glad the woman wasn't dangerous. Too bad it wasn't Bush himself who had the epxerience.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Our govt officials should be protected against potentially crazy people, yes of course.

And yet, at the same time, this administration has been so protected from public dissent that they are completely disconnected from the people they are supposed to be representing.

I agree with both. Their tactics are far out there, they can make hand gestures and all of that but to get that close to her is at the line if not crossing it. But it's all to get attention and it worked, right? I don't condone it, but I do condone dissent when it's warranted.

PS-

I was all set to do the Papelbon dance. I could make it 5 myself but it's not the same.

 

[deep]

Does Condi require stronger security?

maximum security.



I am anti-death penalty, no exceptions

 

[diamond]

maximum security.



I am anti-death penalty, no exceptions

that's not very nice.

dbs

 

[deep]

Condi is a very despicable person.

She has zero credibility.

 

[diamond]

She has zero credibility. [/B]

She only said nice things about you.


dbs

 

[phillyfan26]

Well, alright then.

Good use of the photograph, there.

 

[deep]

She only said nice things about you.


dbs

That may be your fantasy; I know some straight men have lesbian fantasies

I don't believe they can be converted

I respect Condi’s right to choose her own significant other.

 

[VintagePunk]

IMO, this looks for more crazed:

than this:

I'd rather be protected from Condi than the protester. Just sayin'.

 

[financeguy]

That may be your fantasy; I know some straight men have lesbian fantasies

I don't believe they can be converted

I respect Condi’s right to choose her own significant other.

I'm apparently the homophobic-white-supremacist-misogynist-in- chief of FYM, but to be honest bringing up unproven speculation about Condi's sexuality is a bit unfair and also completely and utterly irrelevant. There is no evidence that Condi has ever made a homophobic remark, statement or gesture in her life, so if, for the sake of argument, she happens to be a worshipper at the altar of Sappho, I don't believe she could be accused of hypocrisy.

I think that her conniving with war criminals is sufficient to damn her.

Like Rumsfeld, she's essentially a servant who does her masters' bidding.

Let's focus on the main deal.

The main deal essentially is to get these bastard* murdering war criminals in handcuffs, put them on trial, hold them to account, and try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

And the ideas behind the philosophy of neo-conservatism, in my view, basically need to be ruthlessly challenged, exposed, ridiculed, scorned, mocked, and kicked until they are dead in the marketplace of ideas.

I am speaking metaphorically, of course, lest any lurking Buschbot tries to accuse me of 'giving succour to terrorists', 'supporting the enemy' or whatever other thought crime the establishment has lately invented. To be fair here, those that post in favour of neoc-conservatism on this particular forum are generally supporters of freedom of speech.

* I would like to apologise to any persons who happen to be borne out of wedlock. In this context, when I use the word 'bastard', I am referring purely to murdering war criminals, such as Bush, Blair, Cheney and their conniving overlords and servants.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

Yes, she does.

 

[verte76]

Oh, definitely, she should have security.

 

[BVS]

I'm apparently the homophobic-white-supremacist-misogynist-in- chief of FYM,

You give yourself too much credit.