DiggJoin DiggAbout
See the original image at progressnowaction.org —

61-year-old woman kicked out of McCain "public" townhall

progressnowaction.org — a 61-year-old librarian was kicked out of McCain's "public" townhall, issued a ticket for "trespassing" and threatened with arrest if she returned...all because she had a "McCain=Bush" sign. WTF ever happened to free speech?

made popular 183 days ago

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community.Take the Tour to learn more.

Remove

Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.

Related by Keyword BETA!

Librarian with ‘McCain=Bush’ Sign Kicked Out of Public Event

  • 1471 diggs
  • Made popular 183 days ago
  • 132
  • thinkprogress.org

Colorado Gov. Ritter Taps Relative Unknown Bennet for Senate

  • 238 diggs
  • Made popular 3 days ago
  • 34
  • www.rockymountainnews.com

France Bans Advertising on Public TV During Primetime

  • 568 diggs
  • Made popular 1 day 4 hr ago
  • 153
  • news.bbc.co.uk

How are these related stories? Tell us!

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jtucker65, on 07/07/2008, -17/+165Why doesn't this surprise me??
    • carpespasm, on 07/07/2008, -3/+22Because John McCain's existing history of half-truth and event bending like his rallies with paid audiences make this seem like nothing new?
    • Infowarmachine, on 07/08/2008, -2/+22the obligatory 'why doesnt this surprise me' never fails to get diggs ;)

      the question is valid though.. it SHOULD surprise, and infuriate us
      • misguidedmonkey, on 07/08/2008, -5/+0The reason is because she showed up to stir up controversy. McCain sucks but so does Obama. It's funny how Fark, Reddit and other sites show no blatant bias toward Obama, but you come here to Digg and we're swimming around in his ***** bowl. Get a life.
        You ***** are ridiculous.
    • SkateItsGreat, on 07/08/2008, -1/+14This proves that he will shut down all those who oppose him. It is to risky to give people like this a chance in office.
    • Nitrodist88, on 07/08/2008, -2/+20Obviously you're only allowed to come to public townhall meetings if you agree with McCain's ideology.
    • Equinox2012, on 07/08/2008, -1/+17This kind of ***** didn't happen until Bush took office. When he was governor of Texas, he was notorious for removing people he didn't like from addresses and allowing protesters to protest only on the outskirts of Austin away from media.

      Now everybody does it. On the plus side, she made more of a point getting covered in the news than if she was just kicked out.
    • ohmahgawd, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1It shouldn't, and based on how stupid McCain supporters are, it should end here. If it doesn't then you're not a true McCain supporter. You're just ignorant, and probably old. And stupid, because in todays fast-past world, you're very slow.
    • davidg11, on 07/08/2008, -20/+7You're right. And I should have the right to hold up an

      Obama = ***** sign wearing my KKK clown costume.

      Free Speech, right?

      Oh wait...so there are limits liberals?

      I love hypocrites.

      • barbobot, on 07/08/2008, -1/+15Why not?

        You'd be the the one who looked like an idiot. As a matter of fact, I would encourage you to.
      • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -1/+16Wait, wait, so
        So, calling someone Bush is equivalent to calling someone a *****?

        That's offensive to ***** everywhere.

        Seriously, now. "McCain == Bush" is commentary on policy. "Obama == *****" is little more than racist. If you were to go with "Obama == Jackson", "Obama == Osama", or almost anything else, your argument *may* have been defensible. As it is, you shot it in the foot by illustrating exactly *where* limits on speech do exist - hate speech.
      • lbdinh, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6You do have the right to do that...I can't guarantee your safety though if you're among a black crowd.
      • cygnus2112, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1http://www.sharonherald.com/local/local_story_1752 ...

        "Published June 23, 2008 08:55 pm - A sign making a mockery of Sen. Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency was removed Monday morning from Brookfield’s town center, police said.

        Police remove sign deriding Obama from Brookfield's town center

        By Patrick W. Connelly
        Herald Staff Writer

        BROOKFIELD —

        A sign making a mockery of Sen. Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency was removed Monday morning from Brookfield’s town center, police said.

        The crudely rendered sign called presumptive Democratic Party nominee Obama’s attempt to became the first African-American president a “conquest for the planet of the apes.”

        It was seen around 7 a.m. in Brookfield Center by a patrolman and was promptly removed, police Chief Dan Faustino said."
      • ayeroxor, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1It's too bad the patrolman didn't ask Obama if the man should be removed first. If the man was simply peacefully holding a sign, I think Obama would have laughed and let him be. That's the best way to deal with children and other troublemakers.
      • misguidedmonkey, on 07/08/2008, -1/+0Man, you've really pissed off the GObama crowd. Anything to make Diggers pull their tongues out of his cornbread hole is sure to stir up some heat.
    • shna, on 07/08/2008, -5/+0Because I see a lot of people with thumbs down....
    • floorman56, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2It shouldn't surprise you ...look at this
      http://www.protestwarrior.com/videos/crashing_the_ ...
    • csturm, on 07/08/2008, -5/+5Obama would do the same. Look what he did in Michigan to the ladies in head dress.
      • bdorry, on 07/08/2008, -2/+4Don't mention the photo where he was with with a woman in a head dress shortly after, you would have a point otherwise.
      • cygnus2112, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4No, he was referring to this:

        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11168.ht ...

        "Two Muslim women at Barack Obama’s rally in Detroit on Monday were barred from sitting behind the podium by campaign volunteers seeking to prevent the women’s headscarves from appearing in photographs or on television with the candidate.

        The campaign has apologized to the women, both Obama supporters who said they felt betrayed by their treatment at the rally.

        “This is of course not the policy of the campaign. It is offensive and counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the kind of campaign we run,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We sincerely apologize for the behavior of these volunteers.”
      • KathrynMac, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1What did he do? Did he issue them a ticket? No, but McCain's muscle did. Did he kick them out? No, but McCain did. Did he threaten them with arrest? No, but McCain did. No, Obama just did not want a photo op with them because folks like you with McCain dick up your ass would have screamed the picture meant that Obama was consorting with terrorists.
    • griz, on 07/08/2008, -2/+2Another perspective...
      http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9812206

      Apparently the venue is not public property. Also, Progress Now Action was aware that they would have to rent space inside the venue or use the designated protest areas outside the venue. They chose to disregard this.
      Why is it so difficult for people to understand there are still rules to live by.
      • misguidedmonkey, on 07/08/2008, -2/+0This is Digg. The most biased website since the HuffingtonPost.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Just have a two part sign that folds over:

        Part 1 says VOTE MCCAIN! on the outside,
        at a key time, flip the sign inside out,
        the second message can read whatever you want to say:

        save the whales, Vote Ron Paul, EAT MAC&CHEESE! whatever.

        I'm gonna bet she knew full well what kind of reception her sign would receive...
    • wettap, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1An "activist" plant from a liberal "think tank" and a former reporter, maybe?

      Librarian?

      But then again, since I had once disciplined my children; been known to have a drink or two; and at one time in my youth, worked at the local county fair... I could be labeled as an abusive, alcoholic carny.
    • mlhams, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1It's not exactly like it's a free country, right?
  • NickCobb, on 12/07/2008, -19/+373Young enough to be his daughter.
    • marabout40, on 07/07/2008, -10/+16Funny - although I think that's stretching it a bit. :D
      • Rohhob, on 07/08/2008, -2/+19Not that far off though.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/09/2008, -0/+2How can she go to the court house on July 23rd if going their would be a second trespass ?
    • EarlOfLade, on 07/08/2008, -1/+12McCain is the last survivor of the civil war or does it just look like it?
      • bobbyi, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Are you questioning whether he was in the civil war or whether he was a survivor?
    • stillasleep00, on 07/08/2008, -2/+12Or at least his mistress (See Cindy McCain).
      • cfpresley, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5I'm sure Cindy McCain was his mistress when his first wife was disfigured from a car accident, until he got a divorce from her so that he could marry his hot sugar momma.
    • YourDoom123, on 07/08/2008, -12/+3He had a daughter at 12? Damn, that's precocious.
      • takamalak, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2It was a different time in Ancient America.
    • freeth1nker, on 07/08/2008, -2/+5Zing!
    • rationalbeats, on 07/08/2008, -3/+15You win the Internet today.
    • celkin, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10How can he even be allowed to run for president? He was born in Pangaea!
      • LeeSoong, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1... now that is a witty science remark...
    • thepoliticalcat, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1OMFG! Almost! (Points and laughs)
  • marabout40, on 07/07/2008, -17/+150Sneak Preview of a McSame authoritarian regime in America.
    • carpespasm, on 07/07/2008, -18/+11There was nothing authoritarian about this. This woman was clearly there to do nothing but cause trouble and if they hadn't rightly kicked her our when they did who knows what sort of terrible/terroristic things she might have done. John McCain knows how to handle the young 'uns.

      That's a load of crap though, seriously. This was probably an attempt to kick out protesters before they booed him more. If only his supporters felt good enough about him to overshadow his detractors. It only sounded like there were a handful of people booing him a few days ago. Maybe if the rest of the people there weren't so apathetic to him you wouldn't have heard them. I'm sure there are some people who come to protest Obama's meetings, but I'm also pretty sure you'd never hear them over the clapping and cheers.
      • johnny23, on 07/08/2008, -1/+16I don't know. Maybe she was a Bush supporter and wanted to cheer on McCain and his policies which exactly reflect Bush's.
      • supermanly, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6The lady held a sign. Did not verbally/physically interrupt the "public meeting."

        By your logic, the Founding Fathers were causing nothing but trouble by going against an opposite force of King George III.

        Face it, protest is part of this country (MLK anyone?), one holds the right to express political views and here, the lady was not interrupting McCain's actions.
      • GRVeee2, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1Caroespasm is clearly making a joke... you know sarcasm? -_- well i got it
    • twiztidsinz, on 07/08/2008, -1/+17No.. She was clearly there to express a point.
      McCain is just like Bush and it has been shown many times over and over.

      If he's so offended by being mentioned with Bush, then what was he doing here?
      http://hyperpapeterie.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/ ...
    • schrankage, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3If I were those cops, I'd do absolutely nothing. Maybe help her carry her sign. Why aren't cops interesting in protecting our freedoms? Why didn't the cops tell the "Secret Service" to go ***** themselves?

      Because they're authoritarian loving fools who have no concept of freedom.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Ah, no.

        Chain of command.
        Private Property.
        Asked to do something - refused.
        Asked to leave - refused.
        =
        charged with trespass,
        and escorted off the property.

        The police officer clearly said:
        'No, he's saying you're trespassing on city property.'
        and pointed at the other guy.

        She had a choice, sign or no sign.
        She made the wrong choice.

        Police officers are expected to perform their duty.
        It's not fair to blame the officer, he was very logical and polite,
        and gave her the choice: sign and ticket, or no sign and go in.
  • jpowalski, on 07/07/2008, -23/+214
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -2/+30I think it's because of our freedom. That's really the only reason ANYBODY could hate America.
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 07/08/2008, -29/+3Why does Barack Obama the Muslim hate America? See anybody can do what you have done....did it work for you?
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -1/+11I believe jpowalski was already trying to make the point you just tried to make. It is more funny when he did it because it is normally Republicans that accuse "liberals" of "hating America" or being part of the "blame America first crowd".
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 07/08/2008, -8/+1TsuruchiBrian, I've been on Digg for far longer than my account reveals. In all of my encounters on Digg I would say the exact opposite....day after day after day I see nothing but liberals accusing Republicans of "hating America." I have never seen a Republican saying that liberals hate America. I would say that one of us is a liar....and I think its you.
      • vinod1978, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3@QuadZeroRoute - Are you kidding me? Those of us who have opposed the Iraq war far before the majority of Americans realized we were lied to have been called unpatriotic, and terrorist sympathizers. All we have done is try to follow the Constitution and stop stupidity in Washington. We all know that John McCain doesn't hate America - but he sure doesn't show any love to the Constitution or dare I say even common sense.
      • flip2trip, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1@vinod1978--you said, "All we have done is try to follow the Constitution and stop stupidity in Washington."

        Really? So I guess that means you are not voting for McCain OR Obama, because neither of them follow the Constitution.
      • Thorlord, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1QuadZeroRoute you have honestly not heard conservatives accuse liberals of "Hating america"
        you must not listen to Fox or any of the many Conservative radio stations that shout it at least twice an hour.

        i would say that you are the liar.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1I am not a democrat or a republican (although I am registered as a republican currently). I am a Libertarian and I will be voting for for Ron Paul in November even if he is not on the ballot.

        I consider myself mostly impartial when it comes to disputes between democrats and republicans, however I would (although maybe not on Digg), Republicans have been playing the "patriotism card" far more frequently than democrats.

        I also do not regard either party as being very patriotic or respectful of the Constitution.
      • blanketfury, on 07/08/2008, -2/+2I hope you choke on a bacon
    • mdp8889, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5John McCain does not care about all people lol (thanks for the help w that one kanye)
    • D3ADBOLT, on 07/08/2008, -11/+3Why do you?
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Because America has many differing opinions (and every opinion is held by people who vote), and he obviously can only tolerate the opinions he agrees with.
    • scot333, on 07/08/2008, -13/+3Don't be retarded. John McCain is a patriot. Even if you dislike him you can't deny his record. STFU!
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Wow. He was a POW and a Vietnam Veteran. Therefore, nobody can ever question his ideology or motives, right?

        Then why didn't you vote for John Kerry? STFU! You denied his record!

        You are the retard. Too bad your parent's didn't take you to mainstreaming classes so you would know how to live in a society of normal people, and how to compensate for your disadvantages.

        You should look up the definition of "Patriot", because I think you are confusing it with "Nationalist".
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Everyone should watch this video:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eC4AiGjSHM

        He's summed it all up. Plus, he's figured out how to appeal to both the Olbermann and O'Reilly crowds all at once.

        Maybe if both of those crowds took what he says to heart, we wouldn't have such a divisive political playing field? Maybe?
      • bdorry, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Does his record include graduating in the bottom percentile of his class?

        I won't deny his military record, but calling him a patriot makes it sound much more illustrious than it really is. Getting shot down in an airplane does not qualify you to be president.
      • db0255, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1Ladies, ladies. Let's keep it clean.
      • cygnus2112, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2bdorry: "I won't deny his military record, but calling him a patriot makes it sound much more illustrious than it really is. Getting shot down in an airplane does not qualify you to be president."

        No, but serving in public office for more than 20 years just might. Your argument is weak. He flew jets for 7 years before he was shot down, spent five years as a POW - two in solitary, and then 7 more years in the Navy?

        What has Obama done that qualifies him to be Commander-in-Chief? How much political experience does he have to be President?
      • Diderotten, on 07/08/2008, -1/+228 medals for 20 hours of combat time? You better damn believe I'm questioning his record.
    • crypteasy, on 07/08/2008, -7/+1Wow, I can't believe people would actually digg jpowalski's comment.
      Digg has more or less turned into a site that bashes and exploits every candidate, besides obama / ( ron paul ).
    • misguidedmonkey, on 07/08/2008, -3/+0*****, I'm sure if I wore a NObama shirt at a GObama rally, I'd be escorted out as well.
  • intljock, on 07/07/2008, -12/+305If McSame had any balls, he would have invited her inside and explained to America why he is NOT the same as Bush. Instead, his campaign took the cowards way out.
    • wisefool9, on 07/07/2008, -6/+29Now there's a meme that deserves spreading;

      McCain is scared of a 61-year-old lady.

      And the funny thing is, she's not even a protester. Simply carrying in a sign does not make one a protester. I bet if it said "God hates F***" she'd be escorted to meet with him in private.

      Next time lady, hide the sign in yer knickers.
    • dopre, on 07/08/2008, -2/+26McCain = Pussy
      • coyote1284, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Hey, I like pussy. Please don't ruin it for me.
    • Bodieslikesheep, on 07/08/2008, -2/+4Haven't you ever been to Washington D.C.?

      They could give two ***** less about what you think and what you want unless you are making a Lexus payment or a vacation to the Caymens courtesy of your board of directors.
      • EffZee, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1If I needed three ***** do you think they give me three?
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4If McCain were true to his words, he wouldn't exclude people who disagree with him from his rallies.

      Anyone who truly believes in their policies and positions should be able to acknowledge disagreement and eloquently engage the other side with a rational, level headed debate.

      He chose to continue the policy of "free speech zones" and screening audiences and ensuring that only the "party message" is heard, and doing everything to make sure no other message can be heard.

      • ryptide, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2When have you known McCain to be true to his word?
    • desertDenizen, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5I'll reserve my outrage for when McCain wins. But I don't believe he will.
    • Sogui, on 07/08/2008, -4/+3And if you had any brains you'd realize that McCain would never be notified at any point in time that somebody waiting OUTSIDE in a line was removed from the premises.

      "Uhh Mr.McCain I know you're getting ready for this important event, but I just thought I'd share this story with you..."
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Yeah, it's not his fault. He doesn't have any control over his campaign.

        Bush has already used that cop-out in his administration. Is that what we want more of?

        "I am the President of the United States, I am in charge of the world's largest and most powerful military, but I am neutered when it comes to controlling the people who work for me. I am powerless when it comes to my employees or my cabinet."

        And we are supposed to ignore the times when he expels dissenters, because we all know Bush cannot control his own cabinet, right?

        Bush did that. People bought it for a while, but we've all learned our lesson already.

        Try again.
    • Kimberly46, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Very well said!!
  • tbetz, on 07/07/2008, -13/+226This arrest proves that the message on the sign is true.

    Neither Bush nor McCain would permit anyone in the town hall who disagrees with them.

    How long before McCain event attendees will be required to sign loyalty oaths?

    http://www.americablog.com/2004/07/bush-cheney-req ...
    • freeth1nker, on 07/08/2008, -2/+5She was threatened with arrest, not actually arrested (I'm not defending it, just saying).
      • MrSalty, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10Legally, a ticket is actually an arrest in which the person being arrested is released on his or her own recognizance by signing an agreement to appear in court (or pay a fine). If she had refused to sign the ticket she would have remained in custody.

        I question what business the Secret Service has being involved in something that wasn't a legitimate security matter. I can see McCain's campaign goons doing something like this, but you'd think the Secret Service would refuse to get involved. Same goes for the local police. Clearly the woman was breaking no laws. If I were a cop I would refuse to take part in pushing citizens around just because a politician's campaign wants me to.
      • lbdinh, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5I don't understand it. Is this legal?

        That cop clearly pointed to the suit-guy saying that he said she was "trespassing" taking all the context away from himself. Was he just being a tool?
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -2/+11Well to be fair, it has not yet been determined if the woman was in a "free speech zone" or not.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -3/+5This was in America, right? Apparently she WAS in a free speech zone. We all are, and many people died to make sure we are.

        Amendment I
        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.



      • SlimFastForYou, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1Unfortunately, the Constitution says that CONGRESS can't outlaw free speech - not that the executive branch or city or state governments can't prevent you from having free speech. So if, for example, President Bush decides that all athiests should be designated as "enemy combatants" and swat teams start breaking down doors and hauling trainloads of people to concentration camps - they haven't violated your Constitutional rights.

        Even if the first amendment said "neither Congress nor the executive branch nor the judicial branch may abridge the freedom of speech", the 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So if a state legislature starts adopting saudi arabia policies toward women, well guess what the tenth amendment lets them. Gotta love this so-called land of the free supposed bastion of liberty.

        As much as I hate to admit it, I think Guiliani's view on freedom is correct - evilness aside. "Freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."

        So, um, does anyone have any suggestions on where to emigrate to? I'd like to live in a country that's like the America we're all taught about in school.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1SlimFastForYou, I had to digg you down because I cannot abide any interpretation of the US Constitution where you basically say that it is only "congress" that is restricted from making laws that restrict free speech, and that any state or local government can set up concentration camps to get rid of people who violate their interpretation of acceptable speech.

        Giuliani is a nutcase. We're talking about a guy who divorced his wife by announcing it at a televised press conference. "I am the mayor, I'm going to do what is good for New York City. Oh, by the way honey, I've filed for divorce." Nice guy.

        I have a suggestion on where you can emigrate to. 1934 Germany. You might like it.

        Dude, I know you are almost in the same camp with me and everyone else who wants to prevent America becoming a totalitarian state, but I think you need to do a little bit more research, and learn a little bit more about what this country stands for (not what it does now, under the control of the corporatists, but what it claims to STAND FOR.)

        Leaving now, if you really believe in American ideals, will only ensure that it becomes what Nazi Germany became after all the educated and reasonable people fled Germany.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3@SlimFastForYou

        How it is supposed to work:
        Congress makes laws (within the bounds of the constitution)
        The executive branch enforces the constitution and the laws that congress makes.
        The judiciary decides if the constitution or the laws that congress made have been violated, and appropriate punishments.

        I think it is implied that the executive branch cannot act in an unlawful manner (i.e. enforce laws that do not exist). If the executive branch DOES this, then I believe under the constitution you have a right to sue the government in a court of law (i.e. petition the Government for redress of grievances). Should the court decide that the government acted unlawfully, they may decide to compensate you and/or fine or jail the government officials responsible.

        Well that is at least how it is supposed to work in theory.
      • SlimFastForYou, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2I can't claim to have perfect knowledge about everything this country stands for. I think of things like the declaration of independence, federalist papers, statements made by founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, the spirit of Supreme Court rulings about things like Jim Crow laws, etc. I'm sure that the founders never intended for people to get arrested for pointing out that one politician is like another.

        But times are a lot different today. They didn't have TVs blaring the latest talking points day in and day out, there was instead a lot of newspapers with a diverse ownership. It was a time before propaganda techniques from the likes of Joseph Goebbels came into widespread usage. Public servants were held to the standard of following the letter and the spirit of the law, instead of exploiting whatever loophole was convenient at the time. The tenth amendment used to limit the powers of the federal government, but the interstate commerce clause is nowadays used to give Congress nearly carte blanche authority.

        Thank you for taking the time to explain why you dugg me down instead of just doing it. I like to think of this country as having principles that are supposed to be followed, but I increasingly see politicians doing anything and everything they can get away with. I was taught in school that if I went to jail the government had to at least tell me why I was being held (habeas corpus). I was taught that three branches of government were created so that we would never have to suffer the abuses of a king. We went through a whole lot of effort because of King George, now we have President George.

        To be honest, if swat teams or whatever started sending people to concentration camps, I'm sure the abuse couldn't continue forever. Congress might try to do something, but we would probably hear about "executive privilege" and their will would be ignored. The only thing that could then stop such abuse would be impeachment proceedings (not likely) or a court case that gets appealed then appealed again and finally reaches the supreme court which hopefully hasn't been politicized by the President's appointments. Maybe you're right and I'm just being too pessimistic, but the way I see it the letter of the law allows authority figures to do virtually whatever the hell they want as long as those holding political power condone it and the media downplays the abuses.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Well, times may be different, but this country is still founded on a constitution.

        I agree, Edward Bernays style "public relations" is no different from the propoganda used in Nazi Germany. It has become a standard practice in both government and business. (Marketing and advertising served as a proving ground for the moderm propoganda techniques used in this country.)

        The problem with all the corruption and abuse of laws and the constitution is not that those in power condone it, because it shouldn't be up to them to decide whether that is okay or not. That should be OUR decision, the people, the voters. The problem is, the PR machine has manipulated not only what people think, but also how they think, and people have slowly become acclimated to each progression of abuse by the previous abuse. None of this happened overnight. It was done in thousands of tiny phases, step by step. And of course the media will downplay those abuses. They are owned by corporations, and these abuses are all for the benefits of huge conglomerated corporations.

        "We the people" are on our own out here, and to make matters worse, there are still people drinking the kool aid and arguing against the very basic reality of our current state of affairs.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5The above comment was meant to be read sarcastically.
      Sadly it appears that every comment must be explicitly labeled as sarcastic nowadays.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2I got it. I think you are being dugg down by people who hate any other opinion besides their own, the sort of people who believe "free speech zones" are meant to protect our right to free speech and to peaceably assemble.
    • pinchduck, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Would Obama or Hillary allow someone who disagreed with them into a town hall? I don't know. I'm thinking that Obama might, Hillary certainly not.
    • Barbarino, on 07/08/2008, -6/+3I agree Obama only does this to muslims.
      • vinod1978, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2He never through anyone out - his campaign asked him not for them to be next to him when he was being televised - that's a huge difference.
    • sfelton, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2She has a good point.
      "And for everyone who voted for Bush, I don't see why it's offensive to say McCain = Bush."
      Seems weird for a man who *hugs* bush, and calls a friend would take offense to being compared to him.
    • qittieqat, on 08/04/2008, -0/+0Now this is why Obama doesn't want to have any "Town Hall" meetings/debates with McShame!
  • thewhits, on 07/07/2008, -19/+170McCain = Police State
    • jimmiss, on 07/08/2008, -8/+2What about "Death to the Infidels!"
    • jacquesm, on 07/08/2008, -1/+6you already live in one.
    • buddamus, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3Your banned from Digg for that, no free speech allowed
    • ReinisFMF, on 07/08/2008, -5/+0You should have used "==" instead of "=". You are expressing your will for McCain to become the police state.
  • chrisrnps, on 07/07/2008, -10/+73Gee, reminds me of all the people that used to get kicked out of "open to the public" Bush campaign "townhalls". Guess she was more right than she realized.
  • mrmountain, on 07/07/2008, -29/+18Mc Bush is OLD, OLD, OLD, OLD!

    "Way too old!

    Keep saying it!
    • tcbishop12, on 07/08/2008, -3/+22McCaincient
    • RobN, on 07/08/2008, -8/+9Because we can't win on the issues, so we have to attack on the age thing. Racism is bad, ageism is good -- this week, anyway!
      • wisefool9, on 07/08/2008, -2/+9Uh...this isn't ageism.

        You *can* be too old for this job.

        I don't, however, think you can be too black for it.
      • supermanly, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5Ageism is only good one way for us, the other way for the media (OMG Obama's only...46! -MSM)

        You bring up a good point. Some people on Digg are hypocrites for thinking that the MSM only picks on the details of a potential President (i,e, age, race,) while also partaking in such activity.

        On another note, why is experience considered SO ***** CRUCIAL? I mean, you have 3 trillion advisers, does it really matter after a certain point? And also, does war service actually mean anything to leadership? I respect that McCain served the country unlike Bush but how does shooting a gun/getting capture translate to making the correct decision on Iran?
    • Lososaurus, on 07/08/2008, -1/+3Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers?
  • smmakira, on 07/07/2008, -29/+8They really kicked her out for that Patchwork coat she is wearing....sheesh...Peapod guy didn't complain when he was asked to leave.
  • relby, on 07/07/2008, -9/+37McWretched strikes again! So much for the right to peacefully protest . . . .
    • loganro, on 07/08/2008, -10/+7When are you and others going to realize that calling him McWretched and other stupid names make you like like a fool and know absolutely nothing.
      • marabout40, on 07/08/2008, -4/+3So you never call Obama Obambi or Obama supporters obamabots?
      • vibrate, on 07/08/2008, -4/+10I agree - all these stupid, juvenile names like McShame, Nobama, Anne *****... actually, that one's ok - are so school playground they immediately negate any relevant point the person using them has to make.

        Lets try not to act like 12 years olds, people.
      • loganro, on 07/08/2008, -3/+3Never have
      • relby, on 07/08/2008, -2/+4Hey, easy there, bulldog! Just trying to inject a little bit of (perhaps juvenile) humor into what I consider a truly sad situation. I really, REALLY think McCain (better?) will be bad for this country, and it gives me a little bit of relief to come up with new Mc-Fill-In-The-Blank lines, okay?

        If it makes you feel better, I'll phrase it this way: Kicking a 61-year-old (or any age) U.S. citizen out of a public event because she was peacefully voicing her opinion is, in my opinion, a wretched thing to do.
      • coyote1284, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1So no "Big McBreakfast with a side of Bush-browns"?
  • kayvman78, on 07/07/2008, -10/+53Sure sounds like something a Bush rally would do. So I guess the shirt was right.
  • obscurant, on 07/07/2008, -15/+31You can be removed from a political venue because your voicing of dissent labels you as a protestor, and hence a threat. How many politicians in the US have been attacked by protestors? The Secret Service is protecting against threats, but these threats are the real voices of democracy, political dissent.

    Make the government afraid, tell a politician off...
    • janedoe37, on 07/08/2008, -1/+21How is her sign "voicing dissent" though? As she said, some people would view it as a compliment. Her sign didn't say whether she approved or disapproved of McCain being like Bush. I'm sure there are several civil rights lawyers looking up her phone number as we type.
    • EffZee, on 07/08/2008, -5/+2I isn't the one person carrying a sigh that will try to do harm, it's the people carrying a hidden weapong that will.
    • obscurant, on 07/08/2008, -1/+8She could have been saying something altogether different..."McCain = General Tso's Chicken" It doesn't even have to be dissent. You can be removed under these police state procedures for any type of public speech - there's very little chance of her being charged with anything, but the point is to remove her from the venue before the arrival of the major media. The US is becoming less tolerant of free speech because it's becoming less democratic - to keep a system from toppling, a system that isn't all that representative of the people or responsive to their needs, requires coercive forces on that speech, to minimize critical comments.

      Even if she were protesting something that I didn't agree with, I'd be equally upset at her removal, because it's a violation of the 1st amendment.
      • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2must ... make ... that... sign...
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1In a way, it isn't really a violation of the 1st amendment. This is why Bush has been allowed to get away with it for so long. His campaign rented a venue, they actually do have a right to determine who can and cannot enter. Sad as that is, they were not violating anyone's 1st amendment rights.

        However, I do think it was a politically narrow-minded thing to do and it tells alot about the cynical nature of using "straight talk" as a campaign slogan, when all it apparently means is "one idea, one ideology, and all others must be shut out and kept from having a say."
  • alapoet, on 07/08/2008, -10/+43Is there any depth to which McCain won't stoop?

    "Attend a McCain rally -- see old ladies get the smackdown"?
    • boydrew, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1It seems to me like she went there with the intent to disrupt. Otherwise a cameraman wouldn't have been watching her every move and follow her. Denver Center Performing Arts , as a private establishment, can ask anyone to leave that they determine as disruptive.if it was a public building, she has every right to be there.... as long as she didn't do anything before the cameraman started recording....
      • vinod1978, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3@boydrew - She is allowed to go there with an intent to disrupt, and she was well within her rights to protest exactly where she was.

        On Jan 3, 2008 The California Supreme Court Justice ruled 4-3 on the side of the protesters. In his summary, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, declared that "malls can enforce regulations on demonstrations to assure they don't interfere with normal business, but they can't block speech based on its content, such as calling for a store boycott. (http://newsquake.netscape.com/2008/01/03/overlooke ...

        There also have been numerous amount of other Supreme Court rulings that disagree with your statement out protesting on a "private" property.

        Check out this PDF by the ACLU: http://www.aclu-tn.org/pdfs/your_right_to_protest. ...
  • marabout40, on 07/08/2008, -10/+47McCain "townhalls" are a farce http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/14/0952/31661 ... and attending one is a risky undertaking especially if you're disabled http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/167 ...
  • tcbishop12, on 07/08/2008, -7/+26Any relation to new McCain campaign manager Schmidt (former Bush campaign architect) not permitting reporters on the McCain plane to be within 30 feet of the candidate unless they agree not to challenge McCain and always write favorable articles?

    Wasn't it McCain's people who were pushing the story of the Obama staffer moving the two-scarved women from a photo-op behind the candidate? Kind of a big difference in saying - "no -- please sit here instead" and being forcibly ejected, don't you think?
  • donelson, on 07/08/2008, -16/+81
    • girwen, on 07/08/2008, -1/+13I couldn't agree with you more put them on trial and send them to prison:
      Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
      ...
      Article 3
      Seat of the Court
      1. The seat of the Court shall be established at The Hague in the Netherlands ("the host State").
      ...
      Article 5
      Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
      1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
      ...
      (b) Crimes against humanity;
      (c) War crimes;
      (d) The crime of aggression.
      ...
      Article 7
      Crimes against humanity
      1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
      (a) Murder;
      ...
      (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
      (f) Torture;
      ...
      2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
      ...
      (d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
      (e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
      ...
      (g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
      ...
      (i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
      ...
      Article 8
      War crimes
      1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
      2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
      (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
      ...
      (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
      (iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
      ...
      (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

      http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cst ...
    • blanketfury, on 07/08/2008, -1/+7Highly doubt this will happen :(.

      Bush and Cheney have real estate holdings where they can flee to (ex. Paraguay) that will protect them prosecution

      Welcome to Soviet America.
    • Bodieslikesheep, on 07/08/2008, -1/+9Didn't you catch the memo?

      BushCo. pardoned themselves against any future war crime or litigation suits.
      • GassyTurd, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5That one really cracks me up. Then I start to weep.
      • coyote1284, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1The boogeymen are coming!
  • spoonboy, on 07/08/2008, -11/+52Land of the free, eeh?
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 07/08/2008, -2/+16"Look, you are free, ok? So shut up and get back in line or you might just lose your freedom."
    • macweirdo42, on 07/08/2008, -0/+11What are you talking about? You're perfectly free to keep your damn mouth shut and not question the president er future president er candidate.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8If you hate your freedom so much, move to China... where they do the same stuff... but in Chinese.
      • colorwindows, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1that is the loudest lol I've had in a while. I will be quoting you on that one, TsuruchiBrian.
    • teddyrux, on 07/08/2008, -2/+3Spaghetti Monster Bless Canada.
  • knumbknuts, on 07/08/2008, -32/+20All right, I'll walk into an Obama love-in with an Obama=Carter sign and see how far I get.
    • alapoet, on 07/08/2008, -7/+30Actually, you'd probably be the hit of the party, dumbnuts.

      Obama people love Carter. Carter people love Obama.

      Obama even has Carter's endorsement.

      Get a clue.
      • randydaytona, on 07/08/2008, -9/+4and that's a good thing???
      • wisefool9, on 07/08/2008, -8/+2C'mon alapoet, you're being to literal...especially for a poet.

        The comeback from the right is going to be bloggers showing up to Barack's events with signs saying 'Obama = *' signs until someone gets kicked out. Then the sh*tstorm will start from the wingnuts.

        = Castro?
        = Stalin?

        The point is not Carter, the point is disrupting the candidate's 'message'.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm an Obama supporter. I'm also a 61-year-old-lady-with-signs supporter. But there are 'public events' and then there are events 'open to the public.'
      • knumbknuts, on 07/08/2008, -7/+3I don't really care about the policy, but going after my moniker, that just hurts. Sniff.

        Seriously, you are a "writer?" You can do better than that. Man up, Nancy. Hit me harder than "dumbnuts."
    • marabout40, on 07/08/2008, -3/+13He'll be at the John McEachern High School in Powder Springs, GA for a townhall tomorrow. Be sure to come back and tell us what happened.
      • knumbknuts, on 07/08/2008, -3/+2Wot, go to Georgia? My masochism has limits.
    • f0rensic, on 07/08/2008, -2/+7Most people at Obama rallies would consider that a compliment
    • Bodieslikesheep, on 07/08/2008, -2/+6You will probably get a lot of people who won't have either the knowledge of history or policy to strike dialouge except those who were alive in the Carter administration.
      Oh - and last time I checked, Carter's wife wasn't on the board of directors for the CFR. ***** is getting scary - because it's real.

      The movie Idiocracy doesn't seem to be too far fetched nowadays.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3idiocracy had to be a comedy in order to not scare people.

        They weren't being silly, they were trying to make a valid point.

        I've noticed this all my life. Even Adam Corrolla said it one night on love line back in the 1990's, "stupidity is the most powerful fertility drug known to man."

        Even conservative authors have noted that as people become better educated they tend to reproduce less and less, to the point where intelligent people are barely achieving a replacement birth-rate, worldwide.
    • JrtD, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0At least Carter made bold attempts to move the country forward with alternative energy despite opposition from Republicans (unfortunately Republicans managed to kill Carter's plans 30 years ago; remember how Reagan tore down the solar panels that Carter put on the White House?). Equating Carter and Obama to get a negative rise out of people is ridiculous. Anyone younger than 40 was either not born or likely was too young to know much about Carter's presidency, except from historical analyses. Comparing Carter to Obama would be just another reminder that McCain and most of his supporters are old and out-of-date.
  • vacantlook, on 07/08/2008, -6/+68Wow, I didn't realize that McCain thought it was an insult being compared to the current president from the same political party to which he himself belongs. I myself would think of it as an insult, as I think Bush has been a horrible president; but why is McCain afraid of being compared to and equated with Bush and the Bush administration's policies?
    • Bodieslikesheep, on 07/08/2008, -0/+12He isn't afraid of it - he's trying to avoid education of other people that in American presidential politics - it's the same stage, just a different puppet.
    • chaosblade77, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5Exactly. If the people knew he agreed with and supported Bush as much as he does, very few people would vote for him; he/the GOP know this. The 20% or whatever that still support Bush, a few uninformed people, a few racists, and some people who vote "R" instead of for a candidate. Would probably give him a total of what, maybe 35%?
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Don't forget the people who watch Fox News Channel. I think they WILL NOT vote for anyone unless they believed he was like Bush. Because Bush saved us from 9/11 by invading Iraq 2 years later!
    • Malacandra95, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Does anyone think this woman would have received that same treatment if it said "McCain = Reagan"?

      No, this is an admission that Bush is a pariah.
  • manicmarvin, on 07/08/2008, -11/+22McCain = Manchurian Candidate
    • EarlOfLade, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Yeah, China may be sooo close to pulling off the biggest intelligence scoop in history. McCain should not have any form of security clearance whatsoever.

      • 22catches, on 07/08/2008, -1/+9America has spent the last few years borrowing extraordinary amounts of money from China to but stuff made in China that you don't even need.

        China doesn't need a Manchurian candidate, they already own America.
    • warlax27, on 07/08/2008, -4/+2Or not....
    • TinternAbbot, on 07/08/2008, -4/+1Could just as easily argue that Obama is an al-Qaeda manchurian candidate. Except that would be ***** stupid, too.
  • FuckXboxx, on 07/08/2008, -27/+11
    • BonersMilloy, on 07/08/2008, -3/+8Yeah, it's a lose-lose election.
      • urgeigh, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Elections have been lose-lose for a loooooong time. :[
    • NikoKun, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1How the ***** does a democrat like Obama = anything close to Bush... -_-
      • BonersMilloy, on 07/08/2008, -1/+0On top of war with Iran and his ties with the giant corporations that run Amercia he wants to get rid of Bush tax CUTS. So you're right. He's Worse than Bush.
      • NikoKun, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Obviously you people are confused, and know very little of Obama.
  • lhbaker, on 07/08/2008, -7/+105All they did was prove her right.
    • Bodieslikesheep, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7Yea, but only the less than 1% of Americans who get news from Digg will catch wind of this - and I'm pretty sure those who have found Digg are more than aware of the current situation of "Whose the next puppet in American politics."
      • chaosblade77, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Is that another one of those reality shows? God... we don't need any more of those.
  • Khast, on 07/08/2008, -6/+19Free speech has gone the way of the Dodo. It is only free speech if you agree with whom you are addressing.
    • DannoSpeaks, on 07/08/2008, -9/+5You really don't understand what "free speech" means do you... Her right to free speech was not violated. She was denied access to a private building because those running the event didn't agree with her message. Just like Target can kick your ass out for being loud and obnoxious, they can deny entrance to this person as well. Just because the meeting was billed as public, that doesn't guarantee anything. Besides, this is just what she wanted anyway.
      • bagelmaster, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4Except it was a public townhall...
      • DannoSpeaks, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1Wow.... Are you sure? Are you sure it wasn't the Denver Center Performing Arts as all the news agencies and the picture in the story are indicating? Just because it is a "Town Hall" style meeting doesn't mean it was held in a town hall... You must have been very confused during primary season.
      • boydrew, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1you're right. not to mention the fact that the video starts recording after they are talking to her. she very well could have been causing a disruption before filming it....
      • vinod1978, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2@DannoSpeaks - Your wrong.

        On Jan 3, 2008 The California Supreme Court Justice ruled 4-3 on the side of the protesters. In his summary, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, declared that "malls can enforce regulations on demonstrations to assure they don't interfere with normal business, but they can't block speech based on its content, such as calling for a store boycott. (http://newsquake.netscape.com/2008/01/03/overlooke ...

        There also have been numerous amount of other Supreme Court rulings that disagree with your statement out protesting on a "private" property.

        Check out this PDF by the ACLU: http://www.aclu-tn.org/pdfs/your_right_to_protest. ...
      • DannoSpeaks, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1@vinod1978, Although I appreciate someone actually submitting proof to back up their arguement, I have to quote your own source from the ACLU regarding protesting on private property. (Remember, this event was held on private property and the women was escorted to public property at the request of those that had authority to do so.)

        Do any First Amendment protections apply to private
        property?
        No. The First Amendment only applies to the government. Owners
        of private businesses, private organizations and private homes have
        the right to decide who they will allow to say what on their property.
        For example, while the First Amendment protects a protestor’s right
        to picket on the public street, a protestor does not have a First
        Amendment right to picket in the yard of a private residence.


        Also, this event took place in Colorado, which is outside CA's jurisdiction. And my argument was based on what the constitution says, I don't pretend to follow individual state laws, which I don't think you do either, considering you quoted a court decision from a different state. I do take pride in knowing what the constitution does guarantee us, because it comes in handy when those on digg pretend to know what they are talking about. I dugg your submission because I really do appreciate your effort and research, but I don't really agree with your conclusions.
    • Hrodrik, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4That's the Freedom that the right wing wants to spread, unfortunately. Freedom to think like they want you to.

      And how ironic it is that the country that wants to spread democracy around the world doesn't even have democratic elections.
    • GassyTurd, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1My speech is more free than yours.
      • EffZee, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Good, cause I'm not paying for that crap.
  • hwood, on 07/08/2008, -9/+44...should be McCain == Bush
    • briankoenig03, on 07/08/2008, -3/+6That's actually been the test case for the loop McCain has been in since he got burned in the 2000 primaries.

      for (int i=0; !(McCain == Bush); i++)
      McCain.Policies[i] = Bush.Policies[i];
      • briankoenig03, on 07/08/2008, -3/+2Whoops, digg removed proper formatting.

        Also, pretend I already overrode the == operator for the list ;-).
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -2/+2error: expected identifier or '(' before 'for'
        error: expected identifier or '(' before '!' token
        error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or '__attribute__' before '++' token
      • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1More like (one iteration per day, starting January 1, 2008)
        for (i=0; i<Bush.Policies.length; i++)
        ....McCain.Policies.push(Bush.Policies[i]);
      • celkin, on 07/08/2008, -0/+9politics AND programming? Must be Digg alright.
      • cambob76, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2You guys are such nerds....
  • randydaytona, on 07/08/2008, -28/+6She probably thought she was the only person there and was being disruptive. I doubt she was thrown out for just holding a sign. I went to a thing for McCain and there were some Ron Paul supporters there (delusional *****) and they had no problem with that.
    • Aikidi, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8yeah i agree man, who the hell needs a constitution anyway?

      america shoots from the hip dammit

      (/sarcasm)

    • desertDenizen, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5Watch the video. The guys says she can stay if she ditches the sign.

      Dumb thing to say in front of somebody capturing the whole thing on video, BTW.
  • loganro, on 07/08/2008, -21/+5Yeah.. I'm sure that is all she was doing.
    • KidCargo, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1Maybe, she did do something inside the event and we only saw the aftermath. The video was pretty cut up. Regardless, she was outside in a public space at the point that we saw her. I think I would have gotten arrested and sued their butts just like those NO-W t-shirt people at the Bush rally. They got $$$$ for getting kicked out.
  • rameshpreddy, on 07/08/2008, -5/+22Her next sign should read McCain / Bush = Oppressive dictators. Guess they are learning a few tricks from the likes of Saddam..
  • kingofinternet, on 07/08/2008, -1/+22that peapod sign is pretty clever and funny
  • rda1441, on 07/08/2008, -24/+3She was looking for a fight...better to get her out than for McCain to have to pick her nutjob wacko liberal BS apart.
    • GassyTurd, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2McCain can't even remember his own name sometimes. How is he going to debate some lady in the crowd?
      • blanketfury, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Tell him to use a computer.

        Oh wait.
      • rda1441, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Remember name or not, he's still Republican...which automatically trumps liberal or democrat.
    • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Actually, it would probably help his campaign significantly if he was able to properly dissect and refute a liberal's position.

      He can't of course, so it *was* better for his position to throw her out.
  • Canadian0207, on 07/08/2008, -1/+10does anyone else here think of those awesome french fries when they hear the word "McCain?"
    • GassyTurd, on 07/08/2008, -2/+7No, I think of war and corruption. Some fries would be nice, though.
  • Infowarmachine, on 07/08/2008, -2/+107"Don't tase me, dear"
  • pintomp3, on 07/08/2008, -1/+25looks like mccain has been reading bush's presidential advance manual:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

    http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/30265res200 ...
  • Dan11023, on 07/08/2008, -21/+3McCain FTW
  • justjoehere, on 07/08/2008, -2/+9Free Speech License to disrupt
  • DannoSpeaks, on 07/08/2008, -12/+17Free speech = congress shall make no law....

    Private institutions, even if run with public money, have the right to deny entrance to anybody they see fit.
    • macweirdo42, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5As corporations come to own more and more of this country, we'll be more and more limited on where we can have free speech, until the only place you'll be allowed freedom of speech is inside your own home (but not too loudly, you wouldn't want to violate noise laws).
      • solboldi, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Corporations do NOT own this country. No one owns this country.

        Hey, digg is a privately owned company...so is google, so is yahoo. I can't stand people like you that think its cool to bash all corporations while giving no thought to what you are saying.

    • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4If private organizations are getting public money, then that means congress passed a law appropriating tax money for that purpose. So no they are not allowed to discriminate against anybody they want to if they get public money.
      • DannoSpeaks, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1The pure stupidity of your statement is mind-bottling. I wish congress would pass a law to shut you up.


        And yes, the owners of private property are able to not allow access to anyone they see fit. Many public sports facilities are paid in part by public money. You can bet your ass you aren't getting inside without a ticket. I bet you hate it when they discriminate on those poor non-ticket holders. Face it, you don't really know what you are talking about.
      • vinod1978, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2@DannoSpeaks - Actually your analogy makes it seem that you don't know what you are talking about. If a person doesn't have a ticket there is no discrimination going on. They are following policy - just like "no shirt, so shoes, no service"; but if they didn't let you in because you held a sign stating your political belief then THAT would be discrimination.

        You should review the Supreme Court cases and the ACLU manual for holding protests before you say that she was not denied her right to peaceful protest. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person CAN PROTEST on a private property as long as they did not prevent business from continuing or severe disturbance. She did neither.

        I know you want to stand up for your guy, but this time it is just way too hard - so you can stop trying.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2@DannoSpeaks

        Hey moron you said...
        "Private institutions, even if run with public money, have the right to deny entrance to ANYBODY THEY SEE FIT."

        What if they see fit to deny entry to black people? Would that be OK? Obviously not. I think you need to go back to school and learn what some of the words you use mean. You seem to have trouble with comprehending other people's statements but also your own, but that is not my problem.

        And when Congress appropriates money for something, they are making a law. That's what congress does. They make laws regarding many things including laws that govern what tax money is used for.
    • obscurant, on 07/08/2008, -2/+4So? She was on public property exercising her right of free speech. She had not entered private property.

      • DannoSpeaks, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Nope, Private grounds. I can't believe how many people dugg this without reading the facts.... Denver Center for Performing Arts. A private foundation runs the place...
    • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -2/+3Buried for not paying attention. It was public property.
      • DannoSpeaks, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2She was on private property and escorted to public property... (the sidewalk.) Read the article again, it took place at the Denver Center for Performing Arts.
  • Dan11023, on 07/08/2008, -19/+6I'm glad she got kicked out........ serves that hippe rite
    • Hrodrik, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Funny but you forgot the /S.

      /s
    • jimmiss, on 07/08/2008, -3/+5People like you are the reason I keep refusing jobs in America.
      • Dan11023, on 07/08/2008, -6/+2Good luck in life.
        You are gonna need it.
      • GassyTurd, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4Yeah, there are no jobs anywhere else in the world.
  • therealdeal101, on 07/08/2008, -3/+18*sigh*
    whats happening to america?
    its one thing after another.
    do we have any rights anymore?
    i really hope this guy doesnt make it to be president.
    i dont think we can take another horrible president like him.
    • nastronomical, on 07/08/2008, -5/+1Switch mCain with Obama and you would want her dead..am i rite?
    • artofficial, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You mean, as opposed to the other 43?
    • KidCargo, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2It's a sign, dude. If it read Obama=Bush at an Obama rally, it's still a sign. What is she going to do, paper cut someone?
    • TinternAbbot, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Are you really worried about losing the right to wield an obnoxious sign to a political town hall?
  • minkusingh, on 07/08/2008, -5/+20another reason to not to vote for this illiterate dumbass...
  • Bodieslikesheep, on 07/08/2008, -12/+17"Welcome to the united snakes
    Land of the thief, home of the slave
    Grand imperial guard where the dollar is sacred

    The cold cotton and latch key child
    Ran away one day and started acting vile
    King of where the wild things are, daddy's proud
    Cause the roman empire done passed it down

    Nothing can save you, you question the rain
    You get rushed in and chained up
    fists raised but I must be insane
    Cause I cant figure a single goddamn way to change it" -taken from Uncle Sam Goddamn by Brother Ali

    What I can't figure out is why people didn't help that poor lady out. When is enough going to be enough? Oh wait, there are brown people thousands of miles away who want to kill us because we are different - not because we have been killing their families for over 50 years. Now call Ron Paul crazy, but I can assure you that this ***** wouldn't have happened had RP been elected as the RNC nominee. Welcome to the police state - "Cause I can't figure a single goddamn way to change it."
    • norris, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Umm... RP had no chance of getting the RNC nomination. He didn't fit the RNC presidential mold (below average inteligence, not self made, easily manipulated, power hungry, emotional, and pandering to no end). He should have abandoned them after it became clear they were in no mood to change platform and ran as the libritarian choice.

      Instead he will write nice little articles complaining about the constitution being trampled and by no means throw his support behind the libritarian candiate. Oh well...
    • D3ADBOLT, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1Have you tried slitting your wrists?
      • vinod1978, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1No - but why don't you give it a go...
  • esentman, on 07/08/2008, -17/+24Hey, remember when two women had to be moved out of view at an Obama event because they were Muslim?

    When you go to a public event like this, you be as respectful as possible, then try to get them with a hard question during the Q and A portion. Being a disturbance doesn't further your cause. Most of you will deny it but if somebody went to an Obama townhall meeting with a sign saying something like "Obama is Wrong for America" they'd be asked to throw out the sign or leave as well.
    • bunit03057, on 07/08/2008, -3/+17Yea actually, I went to an Obama event in NH, and they kicked my friend out because of the anti-Dem shirt he was wearing. I guess they thought he would be a disturbance and stir up bad press for them. Can you imagine if a "don't taze me bro" video occurred at one of these meetings? It would be the end of their candidacy.
      • marabout40, on 07/08/2008, -7/+3You have nothing constructive to say so you make crap up? Wouldn't throwing someone out of an event for an anti-Dem shirt stir up more bad press than if you just ignored that person? furthermore, if Obama's campaign threw ANYONE out of an event, the MSM would grind the story until we all threw up at our teevees.
      • bunit03057, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7No actually we didn't make a big deal about it. He changed the shirt and we went back in. Thanks for calling me a liar though *****.
      • vinod1978, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1@bunit03057 - It's a big difference if staff members asked you to remove a sign or shirt before you were allowed entry, and being removed from the sidewalk and given a ticket to show up in court for trespassing. BIG DIFFERENCE!
      • tamman2000, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Was it an Obama event, or an 'open to the public' town hall meeting?

        If it was the former, that makes quite a difference, doesn't it?
    • BonersMilloy, on 07/08/2008, -2/+12But digg obviously isn't biased at all or anything...
      • BaudiIROCZ, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1I never understand the digg biased claims. These comments are made by the public, there is no political prerequisite for posting. So the Digg demographic is more liberal than conservative. That is mostly the case with the age group on Digg. The democratic party has more support among younger voters. Maybe if more of our senior citizens were computer literate, there would be a stronger conservative voice on here.
      • BonersMilloy, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1It doesnt bother me that they are liberal, I don't really care too much. But the thing that does bother me is that people are praising Obama like he is a king, when they can't name a single thing he has voted on.
    • stillcool, on 07/08/2008, -4/+12Stop it. Just stop it. It's apples and oranges and you know it. Obama took the heat for those who were doing the seating. No one was asked to leave, and after the event he addressed the issue. This ***** of 'he did it too' is ridiculous.
      • Aikidi, on 07/08/2008, -3/+6did he personally? probably not.

        but i'm pretty much positive that somewhere an event coordinator for obama has tossed someone out. thats life, and thats american politics.

        he is the same.
    • lordshank, on 07/08/2008, -3/+3I am not trolling, therefore I will not swear in this rebuttal, but it is this kind of thought that has gotten our nation into this sad state of affairs.

      Freedom is not about respect, it's about experience and difference and living it. It's about adapting. Be it through social, political or economic means, change is what makes life interesting and part of what furthers it. How would the world be if Columbus had respected the views of flat earth theorists, or if the founding fathers respected England? How about MLK respecting the "white authority?" Even peaceful protests were considered an insult to white doctrine. What if we had respected communist/fascist Russia?

      Fortune favors the bold as they say, and you sir, are spineless and complacent.

      Go back to your walled garden and world of manners. Leave evolution to us wild animals.
      • esentman, on 07/08/2008, -2/+2Oh come on. She could have expressed her ideas in a NON-ANNOYING manner. It would be fine for her to stand out front of the venue and hand out some literature about McCain. I would agree with you guys if she was threatened to be arrested in that case, because that is perfectly within her rights.

        However, signs like that inside an event that is meant to be about talking back and forth between people are out of place.
      • lordshank, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3*Final thought*
        McCain is supposed to be a war-vet/POW, I think he can suffer the taunts of a 61 year old woman.
      • chaosblade77, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Um, she was threatened to be arrested if she went back in, and she was fined and given a court date for trespassing.
    • Metaleks, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Of course. This old lady was a rebel! She was causing the most disturbance I've ever seen!
    • thepoliticalcat, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1They didn't "have to be." They were told to sit somewhere else by a volunteer. Obama apologized to them. They were not kicked out, threatened with arrest, or anything else.

      I missed McCain's apology to the librarian. You got a link to it?
  • russ3, on 07/08/2008, -19/+13Wait this sounds like the time obama would not let 2 muslim women sit behind him durring a speech, except that in McCains scenario it was the sign she was carrying, and not her clothing/religion.
    • Hrodrik, on 07/08/2008, -3/+8Didn't I hear something about Obama asking them on stage with him, afterwards?
    • vinod1978, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2Not letting someone sit behind you in a speech, and asking the cops to remove a person and give them a ticket to appear in court are two very different things. Why are you comparing apples and oranges?
      • ryptide, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Because Republicans can't accept responsibility for anything. It is always about comparing what their representative did to what some Democratic representative did. They've done it with Clinton for many years and now they'll do it with Obama.

        They can't admit they are wrong so they point out what someone else did wrong.

        Kinda like 4-year-olds.
  • Hrodrik, on 07/08/2008, -5/+51She asks the right question: Why is it offensive? You people that support McCain also supported Bush, so what's the big deal?
    • coyote1284, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2What do you mean "You people"? Racist!
      /I keed!
  • YodaJones, on 07/08/2008, -16/+7Here's my sign: *****.com McCain = Pile of Steamy ***** with 100% more nuts.
  • mushtakrakish, on 07/08/2008, -5/+20funny how people on mccain's end of the spectrum fight tooth and nail for the second amendment while seemingly overlooking the first. buffet-style bill of rights anyone?
    • GassyTurd, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Slide me some 'o that 5th. Yummy.
    • Fordi, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Me, I prefer Bufett style bill of rights.

      First amendment would be right to freedom of dress
      Second amenment would be right to bear margaritas.
    • desertDenizen, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Scary that 40% (4 of 10, at present) have dugg this down. Mushtak's comment looks like a pretty accurate assessment to me, if not at least worthy of honest thought. Makes me wonder what's on the mind of those 4 downs, and why they don't offer an explanation as a reply. Is it because they own firearms? I mean, I own firearms... but I can still see the problem with unequal protection of the Bill of Rights. Makes me wonder if people just vote reflexively ... "uh oh, he dissed guns, I'd best digg it down."

      I see more of this on digg every day, as the intelligence level gradually creeps down, rapidly approaching the level of YouTube comments. It's been nice knowin' ya, Digg.
      • desertDenizen, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Update: 3.5 hrs later and most of the people in the U.S. are asleep. Now the downs are 4 of 17. I wonder if there's always an ideological bias depending on time of day. Who's up at 3am? High school/college kids on summer break? Self-employed info workers? The unemployed? Insomniacs? Retired folks? Crazy geniuses who only need 1 hr of sleep per day, taken in 15-min catnaps under their desks? (With the exception of retirees, most of these would seem to lean "left of right," i.e., left or center.)

        Just wonderin'.
  • rjwusa, on 07/08/2008, -7/+12http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092

    Yeah, what ever happened to free speech?
    • nemo001, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2That is a classic 'point out the hypocrisy' reply. Did that make the digg front page?
  • nastronomical, on 07/08/2008, -24/+13and if the magical Obama did the same he would be cheered for not putting up with such a horrible and biased usage of words.




    btw its a town hall with rules so ummm...how was this bad again? she did something stupid and got called out on it.
  • dopre, on 07/08/2008, -13/+29McCain = Pussy
    • D3ADBOLT, on 07/08/2008, -5/+3He would beat your ass to a pulp
      • vinod1978, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2With his arms that he can barely move? Yeah, sure.
      • Shigatsu, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1No no no.. Mccain doesn't need to move his arms. He just needs to call Chuck Noris. I heard he's voting consevative this year.
    • akamurph, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1Barrack Husein Obama (sp?) would blow you up! Come on, digg me down now!
    • celkin, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1CHUCK NORRIS '08!!

      No wait...bad idea.
    • spasticjedi, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5This is an insult to pussies everywhere.
    • BadWobot, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1I disagree; no one likes McCain, everyone loves pussy.
  • macinit1138, on 07/08/2008, -1/+90To quote George Carlin: "Rights aren't rights if somebody can just take them away...they're more like temporary privileges"

  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 177 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.