Momma don't take my social studies project away?!

[fossten]

A threat to any president needs to be investigated, simple as that. But thumb tacks on a picture? Seriously now, how is that a threat? If the kid had written 'Death to ****' or 'Die scum die' or anything of that nature on the poster, I can see that as being a potential threat and would certaintly need to be investigated. Joey's avatar has Bush looking like the dunce from Mad magazine, is that a threat? The truth is, dissent against this president is not to be tolerated, if you show disapproval in any form, then you're the enemy.

Good point. I agree with everything except your last sentence.

The argument, however, is that the Secret Service is overreacting or violating the kid's rights by even investigating. I'm not sure they are. Now if they jailed him outright or wrestled him to the floor and beat him, yeah, that would be uncalled for under the Constitution.

 

[MrWilson]

Im sorry, but that is re-:q:q:q:qing diclous! Gotta love that damn patriot act $hit! I, like the kid, am more disgusted with walmart than the gov't. How the hell do they have the right to look at our photos. They have machines that do the whole process from start to finish. I dont know why they are looking. IMO whomever it was that reported it NEEDS to be fired. Its prolly another snoopn' Sally. Damn!

 

[mespock]

The truth is, dissent against this president is not to be tolerated, if you show disapproval in any form, then you're the enemy.

There you have it! If this was Clinton or a Dem... the right wingers would not have a problem with it.

It's this president. You are not allowed to say anything negative about him. They take it like a personal attack.

 

[RB3]

Im sorry, but that is re-:q:q:q:qing diclous! Gotta love that damn patriot act $hit! I, like the kid, am more disgusted with walmart than the gov't. How the hell do they have the right to look at our photos. They have machines that do the whole process from start to finish. I dont know why they are looking. IMO whomever it was that reported it NEEDS to be fired. Its prolly another snoopn' Sally. Damn!

The Patriot Act is irrelevant to this discussion.

Photo labs process photos by machine. They're still quality checked and bagged by people. Once you turn anything over to a third party, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy under the law, unless a special privilege exists under the law, such as attorney-client. There is no photo lab-customer privilege under the law, and there never has been. The Patriot Act didn't change that.

 

[RB3]

There you have it! If this was Clinton or a Dem... the right wingers would not have a problem with it.

It's this president. You are not allowed to say anything negative about him. They take it like a personal attack.

Saying something negative about the President isn't the same thing as threatening him with bodily harm. I should think a teacher could make that distinction.

The beef all of you have with this scenario is that "this was just dissent," not a threat. I agree with that, and so does the Secret Service, since nothing came of it. Please explain to me then, how the Secret Service should have known that, in advance, WITHOUT LOOKING INTO IT. Clairvoyance?

 

[Calabrio]

EDIT:
I responded to Mr Wilson and Mespok without realizing RB3 had done so already. To repeat it would be redundant.

 

[raVeneyes]

The beef all of you have with this scenario is that "this was just dissent," not a threat. I agree with that, and so does the Secret Service, since nothing came of it. Please explain to me then, how the Secret Service should have known that, in advance, WITHOUT LOOKING INTO IT. Clairvoyance?

Well, firstly I take issue with the Walmart employee who called the police. Secondly I take issue with the police for referring the matter to the Secret Service. Thirdly I take issue with the Secret Service for wasting taxpayer time and money by sending agents to the school, detaining a student, interrupting classes and learning.

The Secret Service could have investigated any number of ways including having the police scan the photo and send them a copy and dismissing the 'threat' right then and there.

We need to stop being such a reactionary state.

 

[MonsterMark]

Saying something negative about the President isn't the same thing as threatening him with bodily harm. I should think a teacher could make that distinction.

The beef all of you have with this scenario is that "this was just dissent," not a threat. I agree with that, and so does the Secret Service, since nothing came of it. Please explain to me then, how the Secret Service should have known that, in advance, WITHOUT LOOKING INTO IT. Clairvoyance?

You know RB3, I am really getting tired of reading all the common sense you post up here. Time and again you are right on point and make perfect sense.

Can't we get back to mindless arguing.

All the right procedures were followed. The Wal-Mart person did the right thing. The Secret-Service did the right thing. The only person who did the wrong thing is the guy that took the President's picture, put a thumg tack on his head and took a picture of him giving the thumbs down. Was it illegal? No. Was it a threat? Maybe. That is why the Secret Service looked into it. I feel good knowing that at least a part of our government is doing its job.

Here, what if it turned out that the Secret Service went over to the kids house and found plans to assassinate the President? Would all you lefties then say we violated his civil rights for illegal entry?

Sometimes a guy gets pulled over for having a headlight out and ends up busted for drug possession. Is it the fault of the cops for busting him for drug possession when all they pulled him over for was a busted headlight? Or was it the fault of the guy driving around with the busted headlight and possessing illegal drugs?

Man, lefties must have their brain's wired backwards. They always pass the blame.

 

[fossten]

We need to stop being such a reactionary state.

(satire - tongue in cheek)

You're right. These guys are just paranoid. There's no need for all this caution. After all, the 9/11 commission showed that we were totally prepared for the attack, and there was no need to improve our intelligence gathering or evaluating methods. Heck, there wasn't JUST a recent uncovered terrorist plot to assassinate the president. It's not like we're at war, or that terrorism even exists, or that any of this even matters. That's just all big conspiracy hype to mask Bush's real agenda of confiscating the oil reserves of Arab countries so he can pay off Halliburton and one-up his daddy.

In fact, it would be better for the country if the president met with an 'accident' so he would stop screwing up the country and hijacking our foreign policy.

 

[MonsterMark]

We need to stop being such a reactionary state.

Wrong again. Ever since 9/11 we, as a nation, have had to move from a 'reactionary' country to a 'pro-active' country if we want to remain a free society.

Look at France now. They are closing their borders. Look at us. So are we. Are we moving in the right direction?

Why don't you guys on the left just chalk this up as a good civics lesson? I know it isn't on the same level as a seminar for 8 year olds on how to apply a condom, but maybe, just maybe, it taught these kids how to be better kids.

 

[TheDude]

Wrong again. Ever since 9/11 we, as a nation, have had to move from a 'reactionary' country to a 'pro-active' country if we want to remain a free society..

Your right about having to be pro-active, but a line must be drawn. What's next? Do we place all Muslims in the country even American Muslims in internment camps until all terrorist threat has been neutralized? That would be the pro-active thing to do since the terrorist in the 9/11 attack were Muslims. Would that be a free society.

Look at France now. They are closing their borders. Look at us. So are we. Are we moving in the right direction?.

I didn't know the borders were being closed, last I check, illegal aliens are still crossing over the border from the south, if they can do it, certainly well funded terrorist can. Not to mention the northern border and the western & eastern coastlines. The more logical direction would of been to secure our borders before attacking Iraq. The sheer presence of American troops in Muslim lands creates more terrorist that would be willing to travel to America and blow themselves up in order to kill innocent people for their extremist beliefs.

Why don't you guys on the left just chalk this up as a good civics lesson? I know it isn't on the same level as a seminar for 8 year olds on how to apply a condom, but maybe, just maybe, it taught these kids how to be better kids.

Better kids how? By showing them they can't express disapproval. I'm curious, what do you find threatening about the kids poster? Was it the thumb tack, the thumbs down or both?

 

[MonsterMark]

Was it the thumb tack, the thumbs down or both?

Both together. Either one by itself I didn't have as much of a problem with to be perfectly honest with you.

 

[fossten]

Your right about having to be pro-active, but a line must be drawn...

Better kids how? By showing them they can't express disapproval. I'm curious, what do you find threatening about the kids poster? Was it the thumb tack, the thumbs down or both?

No, by showing kids WHERE THE LINE IS. You're the one always crowing about drawing the line. Well, here you go. There is a LIMIT to dissent, and it stops short of threatening or implying violence.

 

[TheDude]

No, by showing kids WHERE THE LINE IS. You're the one always crowing about drawing the line. Well, here you go. There is a LIMIT to dissent, and it stops short of threatening or implying violence.

But I thought you agreed with me that a thumb tack was not a threat?

 

[fossten]

But I thought you agreed with me that a thumb tack was not a threat?

But I thought you agreed with me that the Secret Service needed to investigate it to be safe? How did they show them "they can't express disapproval?" Nobody got arrested. Nothing happened. It's over. Let's move on.

 

[RB3]

Well, firstly I take issue with the Walmart employee who called the police. Secondly I take issue with the police for referring the matter to the Secret Service. Thirdly I take issue with the Secret Service for wasting taxpayer time and money by sending agents to the school, detaining a student, interrupting classes and learning..

You are free to take "issue" with it all day long, but your "issues" have no basis in fact, logic, or law. And what "learning" is represented by sticking tacks into a picture of the President?

The Secret Service could have investigated any number of ways including having the police scan the photo and send them a copy and dismissing the 'threat' right then and there.

That isn't investigating. That's shirking their duty to investigate.

We need to stop being such a reactionary state.

No, the Left needs to stop seeing conspiracy where there's nothing.