digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at star-telegram.com

Incredible lapse in security at Obama rally!

star-telegram.com — America wants a president of change, not a martyr, right? Keep our man safe!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • gwayo, on 02/22/2008, -10/+215Oh great, now that this happened, if they don't change their priorities, people now know they can tote their gun to the next rally. Totally unprofessional.
    • drband36, on 02/22/2008, -12/+155For this to happen in DALLAS? Excuse me?

      This is a non-starter. I mean, when Barack was about to leave New Hampshire, waaaaay back before things got this heated, he had huge security details and the crowds were screened.

      Unacceptable, unacceptable, unacceptable.

      "Seemed like a friendly crowd"? Well, sure --- and so were 99.999999999% of the people in Dallas on that gorgeous day in 1963.

      Elise in NH
      The Obama Minute: quick, easy actions
      to support Barack Obama's candidacy
      http://www.obamastraws.blogspot.com
      • hittnrun, on 02/22/2008, -60/+12Well, if an assasin had made it in to the obama rally, once he heard the "great one" speak, that assassin would have put down his gun, shouted hallaluiah!! and then would have gone out to spread the word and raise money for his new savior. Once the sun went down, he would come to Digg and report all the funny feelings that had run down his leg that day etc, etc. lol This stuff is bordering on a cult.
        • GliTCH82, on 02/22/2008, -5/+14...say what?
          • aliengoods, on 02/22/2008, -5/+18It was a lame attempt to poke at Obama. He doesn't have any intelligent critique, so he stays true to his name.
          • bphicke, on 02/22/2008, -7/+2@GliTCH82, he was poking at Obama supporters, not Obama.
          • chaosium, on 02/22/2008, -1/+9"@GliTCH82, he was poking at Obama supporters, not Obama."

            Both, actually.
        • amirman, on 02/22/2008, -1/+6not only is obama a good speaker but he also gets ***** done. not only does he author a lot of bills that most other senators don't get close to, but he's able to get a lot of support for them and enough to get them passed. don't believe me? look it up for yourself. just look at the number of cosponsors the man gets on his bills, that kind of legislative action doesn't hold a flame to hillary's truly empty senatorial rhetoric of authoring bills with no co-sponsors just so she can claim to be doing something. and his honesty totally destroy's mccain's flipflopathon. if he wasn't such a hypocrite these days i would have considered supporting him.
          • amirman, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1the hypocrite i'm referring to is mccain btw.

            @ aliengoods - how's that for intelligent critique :)
        • skinkaid, on 02/22/2008, -0/+11hittnrun = fail
      • IpecacNeat, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I went to an Obama rally in New Hampshire, and the crowd wasn't screened at all.
        • OwdenBowden, on 02/22/2008, -1/+6LIVE FREE OR DIE!

          That's why.
        • Elliuotatar, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4I went to a McCain rally in NH (I just saw a rally when I was out walking around, so I checked it out) and it was held right off the street, and I was able to just walk right up to the crowd, mingle with them, go get lunch, come back with a plastic fork and knife and eat there. Eventually McCain arrived and walked by so close I could have reached out and touched him.

          And that's the way it should be. These people are not gods. We should not be shutting down highways so the president can drive through. How many presidents were assasinated before we started putting all this crazy security in place? The risk isn't great enough to warrant the expense and inconvenience.
      • Digg90210, on 02/22/2008, -1/+9> and so were 99.999999999% of the people in Dallas on that gorgeous day in 1963.

        Um, maybe 99.9999% (1 in a million) ... your number is 1 out of 100 billion. That's a big crowd in Dallas!
        • wssharp, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2yeah, and don't forget that it was actually 2 CIA guys who shot him... and let's assume there were about 150,000 people on the motorcade route in dallas.. so it's more like 99.9987% were friendlies
          • Elliuotatar, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3And what preparation could they have made to stop it? It was a long route, they couldn't have made sure every building and grassy knoll along it was completely secure.

            And now we have presidents who are too ***** to ever do a motorcade in a convertible again, thus making it seem like the president is even more removed from the people and untouchable than he already was. They arrive in armored limos with blacked out windows, give a brief speech, take only predetermined questions from people specifically chosen to ask them, and then rush off again in their armored limos on closed highways via a secret route.

            Hooray america.
    • Aeaus, on 02/22/2008, -3/+21I just wanted to say that there was no security to enter at the Denver Rally, the crowd was huge, but security seemed very limited. I wasn't screened, and neither were thousands of other people.
      • streak, on 02/22/2008, -9/+1Gee, I thought Obama was supposed to have a good organization. I guess having large crowds of swooners trumps safety. Somebody, make that guy President!
        • cawpin, on 02/22/2008, -2/+5Um, yeah, exactly. He doesn't feel the need to violate people's rights.
        • sinrtb, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1thats how I'm looking at it cawpin.
    • horizonsonfire, on 02/22/2008, -10/+3I went to the building where the debate tonight was held and tried to get a glimpse of him as he came out. There were normal cops around the front of the building, but the back was swarming with secret service. There were also local cops and an emergency ambulance in the back of the building. We got several stern warnings about how to act if either senator came to shake hands with us, but Obama just drove off in his popemobile. I didn't stick around to see Clinton come out.
    • worldinmyeyes, on 02/22/2008, -11/+44I have been concerned about this LONG before this article. If Obama is gunned down, then I won't be a bit surprised if the "official story" is a "racist lunatic, who conveniently commits suicide right after." If they can cover up the JFK assassination then they can certainly do it again.
      • xsuite, on 02/22/2008, -13/+5THis is ***** insane. I would be willing to bet that any assasin is hired by a greedy and threatened person in the government much like in the movie "Shooter."

        If he is killed, there will be change...and blood.
        • ashnbell, on 02/22/2008, -5/+11This is just a shot across his bows, they don't want him dead.... not yet at least.

          They're just letting him know that their power hasn't diminished since they last flexed their muscles in such a way, in that exact same city, back in 1963.

          They engineered this event to make sure that Obama is in absolutely no doubt about what will be in store for him, if he puts up any resistance on the day that they hack their puppeteers strings from Bush, and attempt to attach them to him.
      • Recluse84, on 02/22/2008, -5/+15I've been runnin that same conspiracy theory past friends. For some reason I just have a bad feeling something is going to happen. The government HATES change. Not to mention unfathomably rich corporations.
        • worldinmyeyes, on 02/22/2008, -11/+9Yep, and they hate anyone who can INSPIRE large amounts of people, end wars, fight the establishment, and bring common sense into the equation - they hated JFK, RFK, MLK, Hunter S. Thompson, and John Lennon. All murdered and covered-up by very powerful people (who coincidentally also control the media).

          I also have my doubts about JFK Jr's supposed "pilot error," who was rumored to be on the verge of seeking office and one day be a near shoo-in for President. If they want you dead, they can find a way. And many Americans will be duped yet again.
          • JackSrenton, on 02/22/2008, -0/+6wait what?
            might as well add Heath Ledger to your list as well.

            Way to disrespect Hunter S. rather noble way of going out BTW
          • AgarwaenUmarth, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1If there's anyone on that list that the government would like to kill, it would've been Thompson. Libertarian (and libertine) views don't sit right with people in power.
        • alittleroy101, on 02/22/2008, -1/+9You actually believe the government killed Hunter S. Thompson?
        • thanakar, on 02/22/2008, -2/+8Must be tin foil hat day on digg
        • streak, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1This message paid for by Oprah Corporation.
        • t3soro, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3Yeah, because Obama represents such a powerful threat to the status quo with his policies of more interventionism and socialism...
          Listen to yourself with your foolish "change" rhetoric. Obama is backed by the same globalist and big government scumbags that the rest of them are.
      • ColonelJessup, on 02/22/2008, -11/+4Oh please............. What is it with you people? Do you actually WANT something like that to happen? I don't get it with you people, always bringing up the worst scenario, always with the "doom and gloom", always screaiming "OH MY GOD! WERE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" I am so sick to death of you people and your kooky theories and your "glass is half empty" attitudes.

        No one is going to assasinate anyone. There is no sinister organization whos prime goal is enslavement of the people, and global dominance. There is no conspiracy. There is no shadow government. There are no black helicopters, mind control machines, money masters, or secret alien alliances.

        Please....................... Grow up, read up, SHUT UP, and learn.
        • Exhaust, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5How do you know smart ass? You're so certain about it why don't you explain how you came to that thoughtful conclusion?

          Just as there are conspiracy nuts there are people like you that preach nothing bad will ever happen just before the sky falls in. The FACT is this man needs protection and this is a HUGE lapse in security. PERIOD

          You seriously doubt that there are tons of racist assholes out there would love to kill this man? You sir, need to shut up and learn.
          • streak, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1The only realistic conclusion is Obama's handlers must have requested the change in security... change we can believe in... to ensure a large crowd. It's all a part of marketing Obama. Show me the change.
        • parkermt, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I have a feeling that you are part of the "terrorists are going to kill your children unless..." crowd...
      • cbuddha42, on 02/22/2008, -2/+5Oh wow, your claiming that it's a conspiracy before it even happens? Just for the record, there's a chance that if he wins the general someone will try and take him out. Not some rich corporation who is worried about all this change Obama says will come (because they know how to play it) but rather some random guy who will die before he sees a black man lead the country of his forefathers.
        • karolisonline, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3You can't kill most secured person in the world without help from secret service. it is impossible for some random dude except he is professional ok?
        • counterplex, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1You mean native american's are against Obama??
    • Reaper2806, on 02/22/2008, -0/+18"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."
      - Question: How many bullets does it take to kill a man? All it takes is one man and a gun. Not a firing squad. Letting ONE person in without a proper check is bad enough, and all it takes. The scale of this lapse is astonishing.
      • jakeson2, on 02/22/2008, -21/+2The liberals have been screaming for several years about the loss of freedom. I believe this is a step in the right direction. WE should not have to be subjected to this intrusion into our privacy by scanning our person like this. After all I don't want to be bothered by government MERELY to protect OTHERS. Now isn't that the mantra of the haters of Bush and his efforts to protect us ALL, not just Barack Hussein Obama, but ALL OF US. Maybe this will bring some common sense to the liberal screams of government intrusions.
        • Sirckus, on 02/22/2008, -1/+14The right to Privacy is not a "Liberal belief"
          It's in the frickin Consitution.
          And this is completed different. I want to be protected against "UNWARRANTED SEARCH AND SEIZURE"
          You can bother me when I'm in your business (read: entering a political rally or a government institution) but not when I am going about my own business (read: walking down the street, sitting in my home)

          Sheesh... why does everything these days get painted with such broad strokes. Has our society become so bite-sized that we can't see anything in the middle? Does everything have to be "X-treme" and "To the Maxx"?
      • senatorpjt, on 02/22/2008, -6/+6The other question would be, how is someone going to sneak a gun sufficient to kill a man from that range into a crowded building? Even without searching purses, nobody is going to be able to sneak a rifle into the venue. It would be virtually impossible to hit him with any sort of handgun if he's separated from the audience by more than a few yards. Every assassination I can think of requires the shooter to either use a rifle (JFK), or the shooter has been right next to the victim. (Lincoln)
        • Fxer, on 02/22/2008, -1/+8The range would be smaller if the attempt were made while Senator Obama was exiting the building. And you don't need a gun for an assasination (Bhutto)
        • Kersius, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2Not to mention the fact that a rifle can be very easily and quickly broken down into rather small parts and each part hidden in a different persons purse or bag and then reassembled together inside the area.
        • republicker, on 02/22/2008, -1/+5There are very accurate rifle caliber single shot handguns that can kill large game from around the same distance as a full size rifle.
        • cranium, on 02/22/2008, -1/+9RFK died that way too. We don't need this to happen again.
    • counterplex, on 02/22/2008, -4/+42Agreed! If there's one presidential candidate in my lifetime that I truly fear might be assassinated, it's Obama.
      • jakeson2, on 02/22/2008, -34/+5The haters among have been with us always. There is NO MAN above another. Barack Hussein Obama is a man just like another. WE protect those in leadership. There is not one that needs more protection than another. In fact if anyone needs protection in the United States it is Britney Spears and the other "fancy" people who have the paparazzi hounding them. Most times in a more dangerous situation than at a glazed eyes rally of a cult star like Barack Hussein Obama.
        • Kersius, on 02/22/2008, -7/+8Wait, what's wrong... It would ony let me bury you once....
      • ColonelJessup, on 02/22/2008, -14/+3DISAGREE! No one is going to be assasinated. Pull your head out of your ass!
      • bayviews, on 02/22/2008, -1/+10you should fear ANY presidents assassination,,, dem or repub
        • Spoomeister, on 02/22/2008, -1/+17Well, except one.
        • Elliuotatar, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1And why should we fear that? They're replacable. Why should america go to great expense to protect these guys? They know what they're getting into when they apply for the job. They should get no more protection than senators do.
    • LeeJunFan, on 02/22/2008, -2/+7Yeah, my first thought was what a great lapse in security it was to print this, now anyone who may have thought it would be too hard to get in with a gun will have second thoughts. If they had just kept their mouths shut about it at least everyone would still think they will be checked.
      • cgrickard, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1Similar to when they print stories about how easy it is to find bomb-making instructions online or advertise the different type of hate group websites that exist. the LESS publicity crap like this gets, the less likelihood those on the cusp of insanity will take advantage/exploit it.
      • Zebceponaf, on 02/22/2008, -1/+6Idiots. Don't you think publicity on this ***** is a good thing? If we make enough of a stink about this then they'll fix it next time. Journalism FTW.

        OH NOES!! LETS NOT REPORT ANYTHING BAD CUZ THE TERRORISTS WILL WIN!!!
    • GliTCH82, on 02/22/2008, -9/+8I wonder if these security lapses ever happen for Hillary, too. Or is Obama getting the special treatment?
      • jakeson2, on 02/22/2008, -20/+4You forgot to mention John McCain and Huckabee. Or are you only concerned with leftist liberals?
        • cheesehead, on 02/22/2008, -1/+5Aren't they the ones who usually get assassinated?
        • Robthefrog, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2I'm glad you said this jake. It's like nobody has any news on McCain other than he's pretty much already won, so all the focus is on the liberal popularity contest, which by the way, makes the democratic party look foolish bickering amongst themselves.
      • cbuddha42, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1I believe Obama has had higher turnout at his rallies. As allowing people in without screening was to alleviate a long line I suspect this is a more frequent problem for Obama's staff than Hillary's.
    • tillerman00, on 02/22/2008, -1/+19Dallas has a long and illustrious history of being a very safe and headshotless city for visiting presidents. Don't worry.
    • rheaume, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Hey come on now, what we need is for people to carry concealed weapons in there IN CASE someone decides to shoot him? Right? FREE GUN FOR EVERYONE!!

      USA! USA! USA!
      • mydigga, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1I'd imagine you could shot for saying something like that.
    • Spudster, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3I swear you guys live in a police state. We don't have nearly that much security in Canada for our politicians. Although, we haven't had a prime minister assassinated either...
      • grinchdec23, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Not sure where you live in Canada, but ive noticed a hell of alot more police than ever before... starting to feel the same here.
  • mreal197, on 02/22/2008, -26/+100And to report it to the media.. good grief! Maybe they should have scolded themselves internally, but no reason to tell the press.
    • seanr, on 02/22/2008, -4/+56I'm glad it got out. I don't want them to be able to get away with doing this again and now that people are aware of it, there's probably a major ***** in that office right now.
    • pseudononymist, on 02/22/2008, -5/+81Stupid. This is exactly the kind of thing the media needs to report on. Embarrass the Feds so it doesn't happen again. In Texas of all places... Christ.
    • RRJackson, on 02/22/2008, -4/+16The message is, "We're trying as hard as we can to give you opportunities. Stop wasting them. Pay attention next time."
      • GliTCH82, on 02/22/2008, -1/+5Seriously, I wonder if these happen for Hillary, too. Does anybody have any evidence to the contrary?
        • latpack, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Why would it happen to Hillary? She's the underdog who's already been spoon-fed the Globalist's enslavement plan by her hubby. Obama's the wildcard.
    • insomniacal, on 02/22/2008, -4/+5You don't believe information should be free?
    • fblankblankk, on 02/22/2008, -3/+16I live in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and there were plenty of people who went to the rally and commented on this at length.

      It's not like the lack of security is some big secret and nobody noticed. Not reporting on the elephant in the room won't make it go away.
    • justjoehere, on 02/22/2008, -7/+3Are you serious? You complain that the current administration doesn't tell the press anything and then you support the same view? What a joke.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/22/2008, -4/+9Reality Check: We've had 7 years of the press reporting poorly if at all, and those internal scoldings haven't done *****.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/22/2008, -7/+1Maybe now you understand just it bothers some of us when the NYT publishes information about classified security programs and and basically telling Al Qaeda what are and are not doing to prevent another attack.
    • mikesbaker, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1UH tell the media? What exactly is a news paper aside from media?
    • Calcularius, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2drudgereport is running it in huge bold red letters.
      There aren't any right wing wackos in texas reading drudgereport, are there?
    • delta013, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Wow, I've got to call double standard. If something like this happened with the McCain or Huckabee campaigns, you would be angry they didn't report it sooner, or wishing someone had taken the oppertunity.
    • Lennalf, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I think you are missing the entire point of the press. Believe it or not, It's not just for sports coverage and the stock market!
  • seanr, on 02/22/2008, -27/+15I _REALLY_ hope her wears a vest. Jesus Christ.
    • bpacana, on 02/22/2008, -6/+8Yeah just like Fiddy. To this day he's still kickin.
    • RedPhalanx, on 02/22/2008, -25/+4Vest won't do him any good, really:

      Shot in head = JFK = Dead
      Shot in chest = Reagan = Survived

      And since a helmet would make it hard to look charismatic, he won't wear one.
      • GliTCH82, on 02/22/2008, -2/+29What kind of stupid logic is that? If he gets shot in the chest he could die, but a vest would do more to protect him. Just because Reagan didn't die when he got shot in the chest doesn't mean that everyone who gets shot in the chest without a vest survives.

        EPIC FAIL.
    • poxonyou, on 02/22/2008, -1/+13Hahaha. I'd be even more motivated to watch his speeches if he was wearing a helmet and bullet proof vest.
      • brufleth, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5Lets crank it up a notch and have him complete American Gladiator style obstacle courses while giving those speeches in helmet and vest.
        • latpack, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Cranking it up would mean Gwar-style getups except with bulletproof foam.
    • souljaboytellem, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3He needs like 3 layers of Teflon on
      • iamnobody8614, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4YA! We don't want food sticking to the man
        (i think you mean Kevlar lol)
    • diggydougie, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2A vest wouldn't have helped JFK.
  • SheilaNoya, on 02/22/2008, -19/+261America already lost one great inspirational leader in Dallas. Are they trying to make it two?

    I know the majority of Texans usually root for the Republicans, but this is ridiculous.
    • ThinkBox, on 02/22/2008, -7/+19The death of a human shouldn't revolve around politics. You act as if republicans want him dead, right after you hear that a lot of republicans support him. Good show, oh tolerant one.

      Also, look around, and read around, many of the other rallies didnt even have screening security at ALL.
      • aliengoods, on 02/22/2008, -9/+17"The death of a human shouldn't revolve around politics."

        Tell that to the million dead Iraqis.

        "You act as if republicans want him dead, right after you hear that a lot of republicans support him."

        But I have yet to hear any Republicans in the top tiers of the party support him. They're Republicans first, Americans second. This was evidenced by Rush's comments yesterday.

        "many of the other rallies didnt even have screening security at ALL."

        Do you mean rallies for other candidates, or Obama's other rallies? Also were these before or after Super Tuesday? Obama is in the lead late and is the presumptive nominee. You check everyone.
        • jakeson2, on 02/22/2008, -22/+3At least you listen to Rush. He has the inside information on the cult mess of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. He does his best to counter the scumy yellow journalism of the new york times. A truly yellow paper. Rush at least puts out the truth about the liberal side of the pond, news that cannot, will not EVER be printed by the liberal press.
          • JackSrenton, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2you people with your whole "his middle name is Hussein campaign". Its just as sick as all the "accidental" slip ups that have been going around call Obama Osama. Why dont you go after him for something with a little bit of weight behind it, instead of picking on someone for there name.
          • AgarwaenUmarth, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1"His," not "there." "Someone" is singular and therefore requires a singular pronoun.
        • souljaboytellem, on 02/22/2008, -4/+3Here we go again, he wasnt talking about Iraq, do you really need to bring up the war in every statement you say? It gets old, l2d
        • StolenLamp, on 02/22/2008, -5/+2Thanks for analyzing it one line at a time. I wouldn't have known what you're talking about had you not done that.
      • dafragsta, on 02/22/2008, -3/+22All it takes is ONE backwoods racist jackass who can't stand the idea of a black man as president.
        • AgarwaenUmarth, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1So have armed anti-racist citizens. Once the lone jackass tries to wave his weapon around like a lunatic, a more intelligent person will bring him down.
          • JackSrenton, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3thats a good selling point "Bring your guns to my rally folks!"

            -_-

            and what kind of assassin waves his gun around before he shoots. nobody saw any of the previous presidential shooters coming .
    • stretch611, on 02/22/2008, -4/+13That was my first thought especially after all the comparisons between Obama and JFK.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1Obama is going to lower my taxes and start a war in Viet Nam?
        • Digger1218, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3and bone Marilyn Monroe on the White House diving board? Wait Nixon had that filled in...

          He'll have to settle for Angelina Jolie on the bowling alley floor I suppose
    • BGog, on 02/22/2008, -3/+23Ok... I'm totally an Obama supporter and while I think that republicans are generally misguided it is seriously ridiculous to assert that a candidate is in more danger of dieing because there are republicans around. That is the kind of attitude that splits this nation. We are all americans and while we may disagree on 10% of things there's the remaining 90% that we all agree on that makes us americans.

      • jakeson2, on 02/22/2008, -17/+4You just gave the best common sense reply in this blog. Everyone has a right to support a liberal or a Republican. Listening to CNN, PBS, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC it is hard to get an even center of the road view of a candidate. I can understand the hate of our President Bush as the press mentioned has been bombarding America with a liberal mantra for 6 years. Yet i find i difficult to support Barack Hussein Obama because of his empty record other than his childhood upbringing and that has been glossed over by the press. No significant accomplishments at all to talk about. His one sterling quality is his talk. That's all TALK. He is an accomplished speaker. I fear for the American people if they fall for TALK. We need actual deeds. A fast talking used car salesman can sell cars, but can he provide good transportation or will it fail in a week. Or perhaps a better description was the old west fast talking snake oil salesmen. They could come into town and set up a display and talk PEOPLE INTO BUYING HIS SNAKE OIL. I fear the same is true with Barack Hussein Obama. The press has failed miserably in not digging into Obama's past as they have in the hit piece on John McCain by the Times yesterday. Are you holding your breath for that to happen????? When will we have a hit piece on Hillary with her mottled history with the Rose law firm and her involvement with Foster????
        • alittleroy101, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4NIce work in making sure you mention Hussein as Obama's middle name. OH NO, I'm scared!
        • dxgg, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Wait a cotton pickin' minute! You mean there's a connection between Barack Obama and Saddam Hussein?!
          /sarcasm
        • AgarwaenUmarth, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1[Richard Milhouse] McCain, you mean.
          Regardless, jakeson has a point.
      • dxgg, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1Wait a cotton pickin' minute! You mean there's a connection between Barack Obama and Saddam Hussein?!
        /sarcasm
        • dxgg, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Damn it...replied to the wrong person. *sigh*
    • biggyfred, on 02/22/2008, -9/+2It was Houston. Just sayin.
      • StolenLamp, on 02/22/2008, -1/+7Yeah, except for the fact that Reunion Arena is in downtown DALLAS... read the damn article.
      • allengeer, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2And the president was shot in Dealey Plaze.... also in DALLAS.
      • jmkiii, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Try again
      • Robthefrog, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0poop
    • leb0wski, on 02/22/2008, -1/+14Uh, it wasn't anyone from Texas that ordered the police to stop inspecting people...it was the Secret Service. Learn to read and maybe you'll stop jumping to the "Texans are bad because a lot of them are Republicans" bandwagon.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3obama kennedy comparisons? and I thought people here were drama queens during all those BUSH IS HITLER comparison comment threads.
    • NeilieN, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3If they hadn't stopped screening and only half the people made it in, you would have said the secret service/republicans/Hillary/neocons are actively preventing people from attending Obama rallies. Everything is a crisis.
    • mdcarso, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6Obama is not and never will be JFK
      • mtrip, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4Yeah he isn't a drug addicted womanizer good point.
        • mdcarso, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2Ha ha that was good. Yes, you're right -- they are both pieces of *****.
    • dxgg, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5You're referring to JFK, but let's not forget we've had at least two other inspirational leaders since then (Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King). No, I'm not making comparisons with Obama...just saying that we've already three.
      • latpack, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1A good question to ask is what person has NOT been assassinated who went on to do great things in politics?

        exactly.
    • KazamaSmokers, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2The dittoheads would cheer if he died.
      • beemerphile, on 02/23/2008, -0/+0Thou paintest with a broad brush. More likely they would cheer if he lost.
  • Merp08, on 02/22/2008, -26/+8Oh my God... Please no...Please.
    • GliTCH82, on 02/22/2008, -6/+1Maybe the Secret Service left it up to God to protect him.
  • jottimongo, on 02/22/2008, -12/+31unprofessional, by bare behind! this is the definition of professional, i.e. done by persons whose profession it is to alter the course of current events and thus history. the fact that it happened in Dallas is remarkable only for its audaciousness as one would think they'd have figured "fool me once...", but hell, if it worked there the first time.... decisions of that magnitude do not come from anywhere but on high. it is a MAJOR deal to alter secret service personal protection detail protocol like that, and the only persons with the authority to do so are at the highest levels of unelected office in this country. vigilance is not enough. the full light of the public eye must be shone on this event and OUTRAGE must result, or we will bear the fruit of our neglect. and the media conglomerates aren't going to do our jobs for us. spread the word!
    • SickOfSpin, on 02/22/2008, -6/+1>>unprofessional, by bare behind!
      • SickOfSpin, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3Right you are. Remember the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo? Things might have turned out differently if that had been leaked to the press. People at the top would have had to pay more attention to it.
        • latpack, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1they should just publish terror threats in its own magazine, to be handed out free on street corners. Then when we get a biological attack, we can say "oh yeah.. I knew that was coming!" the responsibility will shift onto the general population!
    • stonewaljacksn, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2do you think you are barack obama talking like that.
  • briotron, on 02/22/2008, -14/+103I REALLY believe the title of this subject should be changed to give it the attention it deserves. I just tried to submit this same story here but it's already here. But this title makes it sound like this may have just been a mistake. And NO, it was not. It was INTENTIONAL. This deserves a headline that says somehow that the police were ordered to stop screening for weapons. As it stands now I doubt unfortunately that this won't be dugg enough unless the title is re-edited to make this article sound as alarming as it really, truly is. If something were to happen to him it would be best if as many of us as possible know that this happened in Dallas. Thanks for submitting it, midwestwally!
    I just heard about this on the Mike Malloy show. It will be re-aired 8pm PST (11pm EST) on www.am1090seattle.com if you want to hear about this. Tune in around 8:08pm PST if you want to catch this.
    • fxu1989, on 02/22/2008, -1/+16Well, it's on the front page .. so I'll take a wild guess and say a lot of people will read it ;)

      As long as it has the word "Obama" .. it shall be read and dugg and favorite'd.
    • Nougat, on 02/22/2008, -1/+10"Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on."

      The US Secret Service? My tinfoil hat is buzzing.
      • poxonyou, on 02/22/2008, -2/+9The US SS is very concerned about making sure the public remains happy by not being inconvenienced by a security screening.
    • Spudster, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1What I love about this article is that in Canada our leaders have nearly zero protection. A couple of weeks ago, I met and spoke with Stephane Dion at a planned rally and there was NO security near him whatsoever. This guy is the official opposition leader here, the equivalent of the Democratic candidate for president.

      In the past, our prime minister had so little security that a nutjob actually broke into his house and knocked on the bedroom door of the prime minister (that happened about ten years ago.)
  • damianmann, on 02/22/2008, -21/+9There's nothing in the way of proof that this was intentional. But, it's truly scary. Someone should be fired.

    I worry that this may have been a run-through.
    • scallon, on 02/22/2008, -1/+23"said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service"
      Um, how is that not intentional? If the Secret Service orders the police to stop security checks, that is intentionally weakening security.
      • CokeBear, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2It was totally intentional. They were warning Barry that he better keep serving the corporate masters and not try to bring about too much of that 'change' stuff.
  • kroses, on 02/22/2008, -17/+3What's the matter with Texas? Are they all NUTS there???
    • sprx, on 02/22/2008, -5/+9short answer:
      Yes
    • dagamer34, on 02/22/2008, -1/+8George Bush is from Connecticut. Blame them, not us.
    • duke, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Order came from Feds. Dallas police just followed orders.
      • AgarwaenUmarth, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Unfortunately, that's what most people here would do.
    • AgarwaenUmarth, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1What is it I smell? A simple sulfur oxide molecule, perhaps mixed with methane and ammonia...?
      ...Oh. It's you. I think I'll move to the next thread now.
  • greenm1981, on 02/22/2008, -26/+18Just a few ideas to intervene and try to stop this. Feel free to add or take away.
    1) Get this dugg up.
    2) Email your friends and family (if you have any)
    3)Type something up. Print it. Distribute it.
    4)Make a sign with this story and stand in front of media stations in a public venue.
    5)Call your Congressmen and demand an inquiry. Call the ACLU and urge a lawsuit.
    Work with haste or he may not have much longer.
    • makkaveli19, on 02/22/2008, -1/+14can i email my cat?... no one loves me:(
      • Jeffler, on 02/22/2008, -1/+6Depends, can yur cat haz intertubes?
    • ronocdh, on 02/22/2008, -3/+6What the hell is there to call your Congressmen about? This sounds much more to me like an Obama tactic to promote a culture of trust. I cannot believe you all are happy about this ueber-security crap. Remember 5 seconds ago when this Obama story didn't exist, and you all hated over-the-top security screenings?
      • greenm1981, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3You call Congress and have them hold hearings as to why the Secret Service gave an order to the Dallas Police Dept to suspend screenings. Only the Executive branch can give that kind of order. Security screenings at concerts and ball games are one thing, but this is Presidential candidate who happens to be the front runner in the Democratic nomination process. Pull your head out of your ass think.
      • Robthefrog, on 02/22/2008, -3/+0You're my ***** hero. Seriously. "Remember 5 seconds ago when this Obama story didn't exist, and you all hated over-the-top security screenings?" Exact example why commentors here are ***** insane. They change their value system on a story by story basis. It's sickening.
    • GhengisKhan, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1I could do all of those things except I chose to work and earn lots 'o money for me and my family. Capitalism FTW!
      • greenm1981, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3If you have to work for your money, then you aren't a very good capitalist.
    • imolaavant, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1clueless.
    • Fxer, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I got a better idea. I don't do all of that because it's of no consequence unless you delude yourself into thinking that it is.
    • justjoehere, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I see that was sarcasm.
  • neckfire, on 02/22/2008, -10/+55How convenient to attribute stupidity that which can be explained by malice.
    • bclinton, on 02/22/2008, -7/+2Uh........What?
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2There's been a lot of that going around lately.
    • mirunit, on 02/22/2008, -4/+2Quick question : Nearly every time there is an airport security article are there not 3/4 of the comments generally expressing outrage at our police state or whatever? Security lapses happen, I assure you had this not happened that we would have some blogger writing about how the security was to prevent people from seeing Obama. Security can be a complicated thing, I think in the future the Secret Service will not do this sort of thing again.
      • OCSmoke, on 02/22/2008, -1/+6I can't imagine anyone calling "police state" because they are not allowed to bring a gun to meet the President. The difference between having my mouthwash and fingernail clippers taken by a cranky retiree and screening potential assassins for guns is a big one.
        • AgarwaenUmarth, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1I would, Second Amendment and all.
    • MattyI, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3I think it's interesting how you actually inverted Hanlon's razor here. The saying is actually "Never attibute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Did you do that on purpose or was that just coincidence? EIther way, I personally will side with Hanlon on this one.

      ....and yes, I'm an obama supporter.
  • jezkah, on 02/22/2008, -1/+43I attended this rally and waited in line for hours. When the line started moving rapidly, I was focused on the building excitement and the impending speech by quite possibly the most eloquent politician of our time. It didn't even occur to me that I didn't see one cop scanning people, no bags checked, or even a non-functional metal detector until a friend mentioned it to me. Scanning the crowd of thousands, I thought it was either bravery or stupidity.
    • dcbebop, on 02/22/2008, -0/+5perhaps he didn't know?
    • checuervo, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I was at a rally in San Francisco ... same problem. The line was MASSIVE and moving at a crawl because of the security. The man's just too damn popular. I say good for them, dropping security to let people in. Don't live in fear!
  • arbouler, on 02/22/2008, -4/+114"seemed" like a friendly crowd...hmmm is that how airline passengers should act now so that we can get rid of the screening at airports?
    • comocomo, on 02/22/2008, -11/+1yes, dumbass. all this security screening is over rated. if somebody wants to kill a politician, they'll do it. you can't follow them their whole lives. and as for the screening thing, planes aren't that scary. why not bring a bomb into the airport and ***** stand next to the longass lines?
    • mescad, on 02/22/2008, -0/+15No. Anyone who can seem friendly after standing in line for an hour in airport security is obviously a terrorist.
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4Sad thing is that will probably work fine as long as they aren't brown.
    • Vote2008, on 02/22/2008, -1/+5Lee Harvey Oswald seemed like a friendly guy to most people that knew him.
    • davewashere, on 02/22/2008, -3/+3Texas governor's wife: Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn't love you
      JFK: That's obvious
      POP
  • bpacana, on 02/22/2008, -21/+6What "secret society" do you think will be behind all of it if it ever happens (God forbid). Illuminati? Opus Dei? Skull & Bones? Some rogue Pro-war Contractors? KKK? Etc...? It's an honest question?
    • nirav72, on 02/22/2008, -5/+13Doesn't have to be a secret organization you ***** idiot. It could be any whack job crazy ***** who can't stand the fact that a black man is running for president. Not only a black man, but one that is actually liked and supported by a vast number of people across the nation.
      • bpacana, on 02/22/2008, -10/+4slimmer chance of that happening. it's more likely to be part of a greater government conspiracy to recoup power. jerk off!
        • CokeBear, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Actually, it would be a combination of those. TPTB reduce the security around him, and let it be known that the security has been reduced, and then the racist nuts take advantage of the opportunity. Damn scary, I hope he's wearing a vest under there.
    • inkhead, on 02/22/2008, -2/+7It would be called the "oil cartel" ;-)
    • vermax, on 02/22/2008, -7/+2IT WILL BE HILLARY. if she gets her chance. you know she's already looking.
    • latpack, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1they all have the same agenda... PROFIT.

      So yeah.. consider an alliance between the ones you've mentioned.
  • Gabberwok, on 02/22/2008, -8/+22I know he wants to be JFK, but he's got to improve his security or he might end up being Bobby instead...
    • nirav72, on 02/22/2008, -2/+16I don't think Obama wants to be a JFK. Its just that he inspires his supporters as JFK had done.
    • cllewis, on 02/22/2008, -19/+2No, he doesn't wanna be JFK. JFK wanted to defend our country.
    • carl67lp, on 02/22/2008, -0/+11Read the article. The Secret Service, not Obama, ordered the change. It's conceivable that Obama didn't even know about it.
  • Malevolant, on 02/22/2008, -1/+14Why would they, or specifically what person told them to stop screening? Obama has secret service protection at this point right? That's a severe lapse no matter what and for someone who might be president it's inexcusable. To further compound this issue they tell everyone what happened so maybe someone else can try it? We live in a say and age where people kill other people to achieve the fame they'd never have otherwise so, once again, inexcusable and they should have someone's ass over this.
  • InfodivaMLIS, on 02/22/2008, -7/+18Idiots! On May 3, 2007, the Secret Service announced that Senator Barack Obama would also have protection following a request from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Amid concerns for his safety as the first black candidate seen as having a viable chance of being elected president, the U.S. government assigned Secret Service protection to Obama 18 months before the general election.[81] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/05/0 ...
    • Yatata, on 02/22/2008, -1/+13yeah. i don't trust them. they answer to the higher ups and i don't trust THEM for *****.

      I was at the rally at key arena in seattle and even though we didn't make it in for the speech we managed to "swim" upstream through the crowd as they were leaving the building and get within feet of him as he was shaking hands after. We went completely undetected (about 4 of us) and were never screened - it was only until afterward did the implications of our obama encounter sink in - there is DEFINITELY not enough protection at his rallies!

      i don't know what the secret service thinks its doing but i don't trust them at all....
    • justjoehere, on 02/22/2008, -6/+1-^-

      Tin foil hat alert
      • Old_Dog, on 02/22/2008, -5/+1Amen to that. However, this individual has lots of company here at Digg. I do yearn for the days of a totally techno Digg, when all the morons didn't share their whacked-out political beliefs and conspiracy theories.
  • JoEBlack982, on 02/22/2008, -8/+20God damnit. Barack should stop going to rally's if they aren't on lockdown.

    First of all, people should under no circumstance bring in anything other than a wallet/purse, and maybe a camera. Anyone with a bag, backpack, or like should be turned away IMMEDIATELY, because it's pointless to waste time checking bags when you could just turn them down and let other people in.

    Second, handheld metal detectors aren't enough. They need a walkthrough system like at airports.
    • noahhoward, on 02/22/2008, -4/+5And who do you think that would help?
  • vishcool1, on 02/22/2008, -3/+58This isn't a conspiracy, I think they do this at all the big rallies. I went to the one in Denver, which was about 10,000 people (inside) and there was no way they were going to have time to screen everybody. In some of these bigger rallies with 15,000+ people, there is no way they have time to screen everyone as well as fit in with Obama's tight schedule.
    That being said, they need to figure out a better system, fast.
    • jeyaone, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2I witnessed this at an event in Reno, NV as well. They just stopped screening after the line outside was not moving anywhere.
    • IslandSaint, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Yep, no screening whatsoever in Seattle.
  • Junkey, on 02/22/2008, -26/+3what chu talking bout wilis, what chu talkin bout everyone?!
  • stevieB, on 02/22/2008, -3/+55"You can't say Dallas doesn't love you, Mr. President"
    --Nellie Connally's last words to JFK
    • wowrob, on 02/22/2008, -1/+12As the wise prophet 50 cent once predicted, "they gonna kill him."
      • Digger1218, on 02/22/2008, -3/+4Because a life long criminal is a good source of wisdom.
        • completerobot, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Because being a life long criminal means you can't be good source of wisdom.
          • Digger1218, on 02/22/2008, -1/+250 Cent got extremely lucky not dying or going to prison for dealing drugs. The vast majority (99.999999%) of people who life that life meet a bad end. His wisdom is about as valuable as a lottery winner's financial advice is. That is: worthless
        • BigBallistix, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2It depends on whether or not he was ever caught.
      • napk, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Wow dude... really?
  • cnot3, on 02/22/2008, -2/+115Are you telling me that in Texas you CAN'T bring your gun to a political rally?
  • CrossCanyon, on 02/22/2008, -4/+42PLEASE be careful, Obama!
  • TheWriteGuy, on 02/22/2008, -5/+31Seriously, Obama's people need to hire their own security detail for him, especially if he wins the Dem nomination. I wouldn't trust the Secret Service with jack *****.
    • malman4, on 02/22/2008, -6/+5Who do you suggest, the Black Panthers?
      • uptown, on 02/22/2008, -0/+8Jack Bauer seems like the obvious choice....
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/22/2008, -6/+1The secret service will protect him rednecks with guns just fine.

      It's when he pisses of the CIA or the bankers that they all start playing blackjack.
    • lovedunks, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1Are you actually advocating that Black Water should provide security for Obama?
    • bsmang, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3The SS has kept Bush safe for the last 7 years - which is a testament to their abilities anyway.
      • earthmansurfer, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3You are missing the point. Most feel Bush is on the "other" side. He will be kept very safe.
  • dropoutfilms, on 02/22/2008, -2/+11They stopped screening at the rally I was at in NYC in late-September, 2007.

    I never really understood the thinking on that one, but there wasn't really enough metal detectors to get everyone through in a reasonable amount of time. I thought they would've resolved it by now!
    • aliengoods, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2But in late 2007 he was trailing Hillary by quite a margin in the polls. Now he's got quite a lead in popular vote, national polls, states won and pledged delegates. So it's much scarier at this point.
  • influenceuh, on 02/22/2008, -6/+6*****. I was hoping my fears weren't confirmed
  • birdly, on 02/22/2008, -4/+9""Sure," said (T.W.) Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd.""

    As if his job is to keep Obama safe from the WHOLE CROWD instead of one idiot. This is truly frightening!
    I wish I could digg this a thousand times!
    • lgehron, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1Let's DO something in addition to posting here - but what?
  • bthug7, on 02/22/2008, -8/+3I would probably explode....
  • jonnyboyca, on 02/22/2008, -13/+14Hillary really WOULD do anything to win... ok ok sorry, couldn't resist.
    • cllewis, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1you don't think so? how about claiming obama was a drug dealer? claiming he's wanted to be president all his life, citing a paper he wrote in first grade? claiming he plagiarized his speech?
    • GhostyBoy, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1More likely racists rednecks who become murderously enraged at the thought of tolerance.
    • ahecht, on 02/22/2008, -1/+1I don't get your argument. I went to a Hillary rally the DAY BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY, and no was was searched or checked on their way in. There was a no bag rule, but everyone was wearing bulky jackets and no one was frisked. I was able to walk in from the street carrying quite a bit of stuff under my coat (books, cameras, etc) and watched Hillary speak from about 10 feet away.
    • eNiX, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3Last time i checked Hilary wasent Black...
  • AsylumAleikum, on 02/22/2008, -12/+1Arcancide happens;). Yes, she can!
  • PovRayMan, on 02/22/2008, -22/+3"America wants a president of change, not a martyr, right? Keep our man safe!" .. How can he be a martyr if he hasn't accomplished anything more than being a junior senator?
  • WayOfTheIronPaw, on 02/22/2008, -2/+15I'm not an American, but given the influence of the US on world affairs, and assuming that Obama can win the presidency, I REALLY hope that Obama takes to wearing a flak jacket under that suit from now on.
  • Yatata, on 02/22/2008, -2/+27I was at the rally at key arena in seattle and even though we didn't make it in for the speech we managed to "swim" upstream through the crowd as they were leaving the building and get within feet of him as he was shaking hands after. We went completely undetected (about 4 of us) and were never screened - it was only until afterward did the implications of our obama encounter sink in - there is DEFINITELY not enough protection at his rallies!

    i don't know what the secret service thinks its doing but i don't trust them at all....
    • saska, on 02/22/2008, -0/+6I was there too, and I was outside too. After they stopped letting people in, some folks in the Arena opened the emergency exits at the back and the crowd rushed them. There was no one but Obama staff on hand to stem the tide. One particularly scary guy did get turned away, more by virtue of how loud, insistent, and nasty he was than anything else. And while he was arguing with the staffer, five more people slipped in through the next exit down.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/saska/2250848187/

      On the other hand, when Obama came outside to speak to the crowd, the Secret Service scrubbed that area so clean you could have eaten off the concrete, and he was positioned half-obscured by a brick wall.

      Two photos taken from the same vantage point:

      Before he came out to speak - http://www.flickr.com/photos/saska/2250930187/

      When he was speaking - http://www.flickr.com/photos/saska/2251743516/ (he is standing approximately 15 feet to the left of the green sign in the first photo, and that area was completely empty)
  • elperroloco, on 02/22/2008, -23/+18Ok digg me down: The whole concept of having to submit to a search to go hear a political candidate speak should scare you a lot more than the chance of some crazy with a gun committing a heinous act. We the sheep. ***** us.
    • nirav72, on 02/22/2008, -3/+12In normal situation yes. But given the fact that this is the first non-white president ever to get this far and popularity that he has - I'd say they need to make an exception and given him the best protection they can. I'm sure there are many people willing to harm him. It's sad , but true. Its a ***** up world out there.
    • smotpoker, on 02/22/2008, -0/+16I semi-agree. I don't think everyone should be patted down and empty their pockets by default, but they should at least have to file through metal detectors and keep him surrounded by bodyguards.
    • StrykeBlade, on 02/22/2008, -7/+2There is no logic in your statement, to assume that one should be "scared" of a security pat down verses NO security pat down and the increased likelihood of a racist or some type of extremist "FREELY" going in and potentially harming any candidate is a stupid thing to think of on your part. You are obviously either naive in your thinking or are experiencing an overdose of conspiracy theory. Please WTFU (WAKE THE ***** UP!)
      • smotpoker, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Currently we already have enough invasion of privacy in this country without everyone going around OK'ing it because something MIGHT happen. Unless you have direct threat/evidence/suspicion of someone, it is understandable that they might not want to be searched or consider it a waste of time/effort/other resources.
        It's obvious security should be a concern but so should our privacy
        Ben Franklin (parahrased in some banner I saw): "Any country who would give up liberty to gain security shall deserve neither and lose both". Privacy is a right/liberty/freedom that should not be dismissed for large groups of people (read "general public") indiscriminitely. The fact you don't mind doesn't mean everyone doesn't
        • pblucke, on 02/22/2008, -5/+1Ben Franklin didn't have to deal with radical Is-sham fanatics blowing people up and flying planes into buildings. Without security there is no liberty.
          • smotpoker, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3Without liberty, there is nothing worth securing
    • GreenGrassyNoel, on 02/22/2008, -7/+2even though the chances of being killed by a random killer are very low, I would rather not take that risk, and be searched a couple times a day.
      • pentalive, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1"And be searched a couple times a day" Are you advocating random street searches perhaps in completely different states to keep Senator Obama safe? Or do you attend a lot of Obama rallies?
        • GreenGrassyNoel, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't mind being searched when I got on a train or went to a shopping mall, school, work, restaurants.
          • smotpoker, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1I would. Unless everyone is searched, it appears either they are discriminatory or you are likely a criminal. If everyone IS searched, you end up with long lines and having to waste resources to accomidate the searches, 99.9% of which only succeed in wasting time/effort/resources that could be applied to a more directed investigation of likely threats or to properly secure likely targets
    • peacenik, on 02/22/2008, -0/+6Given that it is a rally for the person who is a strong contender to be the next leader of the most powerful country on earth, I'd say a security check makes a great deal of sense. I'm not sure what the "being scared" reference is about - if you can't understand that there are real threats to a figure such as Obama (or Clinton or McCain), then you haven't paid much attention to the last 40+ years of politics is the US. Think: JFK, King, RFK, Wallace, Reagan etc.
    • rhochipi, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0Reading the Comments of Everyone Else, a Little Part of me has died. I'm not Sure when it happened, but Nowadays, we are so frightened and so paranoid that if we just sat back and thought about the Chances of such Incidents happening, I know it is incredibly low. I do understand risk, but there are an Infinite Amount of Ways to assassinate/harm someone. We can't take Measures to ensure against Every Possible Way and I think Americans believe there is someone who is supposed to do this–someone or some Agency in Charge of protecting us. Sure, there is, but the SS can only do so much. If anyone should be looking out for Risks, it should be us! The Audience. We can be the Eyes and Ears of an Entire Arena and identify Problems rather than succumbing to Searches. While this very much describes a Place that doesn't exist, I think there should be some Change in American Mentality. We can so easily find Reasons to distrust our Fellow Citizens, but how Many of us would place our Trust in them? 99% of Americans, I'm Sure, are Decent People who wish no Harm to anyone. Yes, we are Human and with the Complexity of our Species, there will be some "Crazies." The Odds of any such Assassination is, I don't know, 1 in a Billion–who knows. If it were my Life, Yes, I wouldn't want to play those Odds and some Security should be expected. But, this is Life. And, what happens happens. Some Measures are Reasonable, but we just need to stop being Afraid.
    • manicmarvin, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1He probably has more to fear from the Clintons than any crazy racist:
      http://www.etherzone.com/body.html
      Perhaps the order came from Billary...
  • inkhead, on 02/22/2008, -8/+6This stuff happens all the time, generally the secret service keeps it private. Despite appearances there are lapses in even the best security. You can't expect a person to walk around giant crowds and be 100% protected. Even with checking stuff at the door, that doesn't stop a determined person from pulling off a crime.
    • imikedaman, on 02/22/2008, -0/+7That's no excuse for just giving up entirely.
  • emomakesmecry, on 02/22/2008, -7/+20That is inexcusable. I remember when Sean Hannity came to speak at my university. They were allowing people into the stadium who were carrying concealed firearms but all of us outside who were protesting got treated pretty miserably. The cops wouldn't allow us to have sticks to hold up our protest signs and kept us behind a metal fence.
    The feds are SO damn biased and I'm sickened with the lack of concern they have for anyone who dares to push for change.
    • malman4, on 02/22/2008, -0/+10How do you know they were carrying "concealed" firearms?
      • emomakesmecry, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3We overheard the officers at the door asking the Sheriff if they were to allow concealed weapons into the auditorium and they said yes. While apparently WE were a threat with the sticks on our signs.
    • jakeson2, on 02/22/2008, -12/+4I am glad you got harassed. Being obnoxious is not the American way. OH, I forgot, IT IS THE WAY OF THE LEFTIST LIBERALS.
      • samwoman, on 02/22/2008, -1/+9My gawd--are you suggesting that Sean Hannity and the like (Ann Coulter, Bill O, Rush Limbaugh etc...) are NOT obnoxious?
        Oh I forgot--YOU yourself are clearly obnoxious, so how could you see it in those poeple?

        I once heard it said that "you can't smell your own stinky feet." It would seem to fit here.
    • Hazardc, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3While i think hannity is an ***** and you have every right to protest, saying that concealed carry holders are a threat to society is also pretty ignorant IMO. I wish you people would start fighting for the whole constitution and not just for everything but the 2a, and realize that the 2a is about protecting ourselves from government tyranny.

      Maybe then ill come back to the democratic party, but i dont see it within my lifetime.
  • ganymede2010, on 02/22/2008, -6/+41If the unthinkable happens there will be ***** anarchy in America. It would make the LA riots look like Disney on Ice!
    • nirav72, on 02/22/2008, -8/+7I know this is not funny. But I had to chuckle at your analogy. Digging you up.
    • SinisterBunni, on 02/22/2008, -8/+2I am totally down with that. I just sounds sooooo conspiratorial though it is not even funny.
    • octurian, on 02/22/2008, -1/+17NO it wouldn't. Americans are to damn lazy to protest anything in a size that matters. As long as American Idol is on, Beer is in hand, fat lazy Americans are content to surrender whatever freedoms they are TOLD to.
      • lpferris, on 02/22/2008, -1/+11I wish that I didn't agree with you...but I do.
      • kyzel, on 02/22/2008, -1/+0i think the beer in hand would increase the chance of a riot... you know how those crazy drunk people get
      • Scheitbag, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1maybe its time to start destroying television infrastructure and breweries...blame it on power elites and watch the morbidly obese, shockingly stupid, american public lurch into motion...until the collective 5 minute attention span passes and the search for beer and a working television begins...
    • FormatC, on 02/22/2008, -12/+4
      I dont think anyone is worried about a bunch of pussy liberals starting anarchy.
      • lpferris, on 02/22/2008, -1/+10Wow, now there's a productive comment. Great addition to the conversation, *****.
    • mdcarso, on 02/22/2008, -10/+1***** -- there would be moaning and wailing about the loss of "the country's only hope," then things would go back to business as usual. On second thought, yeah you're probably right, the ***** would burn their neighborhoods down and then demand federal aid.
      • ParaSwarm, on 02/22/2008, -1/+6Why are you still alive?
        • Shiftgood, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2How... how are you still alive... why is too philosophical.
      • mdcarso, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2ha ha - you're funny dude. But seriously, you need wake up and smell the coffee. Coloreds have always and will always act that way.
    • Shiftgood, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3***** you guys. Im getting a gun and an axe and goin down to Comcast and choping their ***** to bits. Busting every tv dish i can ala project mayhem.

      ... ***** i should do that anyways.
    • duggedup, on 02/22/2008, -0/+6I'm a chubby 53 year old suburban white man and I'd grab a pitchfork and a torch if something happened. I can just imagine what would happen to America's cities.
      • lgehron, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1With you duggedup , (as your female counterpart)!
  • goodnrg, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4This also happened at a rally I was at. At the time though, I was very grateful to rapidly enter the building after waiting two and a half hours in line, and Obama about to speak in 15 minutes.
    • lundeja, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0you weren't attending his rally at the kohl center were you? because the same thing happened to me there.
  • nirav72, on 02/22/2008, -1/+4This is some scary stuff. I hope there was a good enough reason behind it. But hope the major media people pick this up. The race is tied and the nomination hasn't been decided. So a full scale protection detail can't be assigned until a single candidate is nominated in the party. But given the situation, they need to double up their effort. Maybe a closer perimeter of agents around the stage? Plain clothes agents mixed in with the crowd.
    • sfgeek, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3The race isn't exactly uhm 'tied' at this point. Obama's delegate lead is significant and he's won the last 10 contests in a row.
      Oh and trust me, there are more secret service agents there than is clearly apparent. That still doesn't excuse the fact that they stopped screening.
      I was at a bar in DC once and Jenna Bush was there, me and my friend tried to play 'spot the secret service agent.' We seriously couldn't figure out who they were, but somebody once told me she probably has at least 2. They are amazingly good at blending in. (Which I think is pretty cool.)
  • daxsymbiont, on 02/22/2008, -2/+15"..the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service --.."

    hah.
  • KodomoNoJikan, on 02/22/2008, -17/+4Keep OUR man safe!?!?!? OUR MAN???? He is MY MAN KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF HIM!!!!
    < /stupid>
  • known, on 02/22/2008, -15/+3Is it true that Obama will be killed like JFK by unknown if elected as President of America?
    • spawnfree, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2depends if he starts talikng about shutting down the Fed.
      them criminals loves the free money from interest for doing a job the government could do for free.
      • pblucke, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1The government does nothing for free. It is paid for by taxes! Its only free for those that depend on the socialist sytem provided by democrooks that steal the workers hard earned money to buy votes.
  • locust, on 02/22/2008, -7/+12I Love barack so much. My only fear is will have to deal with another JFK one day, I don't want to live through that.
    • RRJackson, on 02/22/2008, -1/+10"I love barack so much"...I feel like I need to bathe after reading that.
      • jakeson2, on 02/22/2008, -4/+2So do I. I really worry about our nation after comments like locust spewed that garbage.
        • mdcarso, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2Right on the money dude
        • Shiftgood, on 02/22/2008, -4/+1When are republicans going to realize that they are basically white *****?
          • mdcarso, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2No, the white ***** are the dumb-ass wiggers with their droopy drawers copying the actions of a bunch jungle apes.
    • ClassicCon, on 02/22/2008, -6/+0Hahah...are you kidding me? How pathetic. You were not around for the JFK assassination so quit acting like you have ever suffered through anything. Go back to your hard life of deciding which fast-food restaurant you are going to pig out on today. ***** liberal nerds, man I miss picking on you guys in school.

      Don't worry you little titty-baby. Mama Obama will be there to take care of all those things normal adults have to worry about.
      • irightthebook, on 02/22/2008, -0/+3Someone has yet to grow up.
      • atchon, on 02/22/2008, -2/+2It is funny if you read your recent activity because every one one of your comments is degrading people as nerds, dorks, or idiots. You would think a normal adult would have a slightly more intellectual way of disagreeing with people than name calling. Also since when are liberals associated with fast food, which you also highly attack in other comments as well.

        Get past your generational ego trip, every generation has shortcomings. The fact that you still miss your school days picking on liberals tells great deals about the excitement of your life, and how satisfied you are with it to constantly pick on people.
  • SuchADigger, on 02/22/2008, -8/+3Sounds like a great setup for "conspiracy movie": The Secret Service sends down the order to stop searching folks to speed things up. Then they put their own armed assasin at the back of the line and get him in without detection. How perfect is that?
    • SuchADigger, on 02/22/2008, -2/+6Hmmm... wait... the sitting president is a Republican, and Obama is the only serious threat to McCain becoming the next Republican president (sorry Hillary, it's true)... maybe this isn't such a far fetched idea after all. Yikes.
  • topgigmedia, on 02/22/2008, -1/+28Costco has tighter security - geez - they practically give you a full cavity search before they let you leave the store after checkout. Perhaps they need to consult for Obama security.
    • rebotfc, on 02/22/2008, -2/+1Which is illegal after you pay for something they have no right to search you.
      • UMDirector, on 02/22/2008, -0/+4Not true...the membership agreement when you sign up for Costco clearly allows them to check your bags...you have agreed to it. You can run off but then they could cancel your membership.

        I also have heard from a Costco checkout person that she only once caught someone stealing something but caught people being double charged for things on a weekly basis....lazy cashiers and such.
    • wowrob, on 02/22/2008, -0/+6Totally worth it though for 2 gallons of mayonnaise.
    • shrednwail, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Welcome to Costco, I love you.
    • beemerphile, on 02/22/2008, -0/+0And these cavity searches, you think they are a Good Thing (tm)?
      • topgigmedia, on 02/23/2008, -0/+1no - I was only highlighting that a store like Costco could do a more thorough job with security than was done at this event.
    • thecatcantalk, on 02/22/2008, -0/+2The scary part, is when you realize that the guy who just gave you the body cavity search, is not a Costco employee...just some homeless guy who picked up a Costco apron and put it on....
  • Yatata, on 02/22/2008, -3/+5i think he needs the protection of the crowd. don't just leave it to someone else - especially a corrupt organization like the SS. I'm actually getting more and more swayed to the right on this issue - like the kids in Utah going to class with guns to protect themselves and others in the event of a shooter... it's a tough call but i think that if people that intend to do harm felt a threat from a crowd, the playing field would be a little more level and may dissuade acts of violence...
    • daxsymbiont, on 02/22/2008, -2/+3The "SS".. Interesting.
    • WayOfTheIronPaw, on 02/22/2008, -3/+2You Sir are a Genius. Indeed: the security staff should give every attendee some kind of firearm as they pass through the gates. I'm thinking something fairly intuitive, like an AK-47. Maybe something light and stylish for the ladies. A simple revolver (not too powerful, mind you!) for the kids. If you pay for the good seats, of course, you get a pair of Uzi 9mm. And visiting dignitaries get a choice of a minigun or a bazooka.

      Of course, everyone should feel free to bring their own guns. You can't beat that familiar feeling of security.
    • sat0shi, on 02/22/2008, -1/+6I think if someone is determined to kill the president, or a potential president, they aren't worried too much about the backlash that will occur to them in the aftermath. I highly doubt anyone would be able to kill the president or any other high ranking gov't official and actually get away with it. Now I will sit and wait for the FBI to knock on my door after typing so many obviously flagged words and phrases.
    • samwoman, on 02/22/2008, -3/+0I was prepared with an eloquent response, but WOTIP stole my thunder,
  • spekesel, on 02/22/2008, -0/+26Dammit Chloe, I need the schematics of the stadium now!
    • JohnboiWaltune, on 02/22/2008, -0/+8I'm sending it to your screen Jack!
    • digjam, on 02/22/2008, -1/+3Jack: Chloe, it's Jack. I need you to upload my new dialogue to my PDA stat.
      Chloe: I'm sorry Jack, we don't have a script yet.
      Jack: Dammit, Chloe, what am I supposed to say now?
      Chloe: I don't know. Why don't you say 'dammit' a few more times?
      Jack: Dammit, that isn't going to be good enough!
      Chloe: Well you use it in every other line of dialogue. That, and 'son of a *****'.
      Jack: Son of a *****!
      Chloe: Told 'ja.
      Jack Bauer. He got the power.
      Minute by minute, and hour after hour.
      He's hard corps, gonna stop the war.
      And he ain't gonna quit until he hits 24.
    • daveheinzel, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1WHO DO YOU WORK FOR????
  • Stevo23, on 02/22/2008, -4/+10Can we get anonymous to be in charge of protecting Obama? They seem to have their ***** together going after Scientology. Although I guess they might have to do more than send annoying faxes.
    • fullphaser, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1Trust me when I say that the last group of people that you want defending Obama is anonymous.
  • ProKid, on 02/22/2008, -3/+1Sounds like they tryin to kill a ninja
  • solgrundy7, on 02/22/2008, -1/+2I suppose it is too much to ask for some reality ans sanity in this world to at last get the reasoned and enlightened majority in the US to do something about these daft gun laws you have? The more and more I see of all of this gun related issue reminds me of Robin Willams who when he said he wasn't too sure whether it was that "Americans had the right to bear arms or arm bears!"
    • starrgazr, on 02/28/2008, -0/+0That shold have said, check the video in my Diggs for an accounting of what happened in Cincinnati - After the Dallas event.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 204 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.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.