GW Bush booed at Nationals' opener

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Buster

With rights come responsibilities.

You can carry a gun, you can't shoot it at people at random.

You can get married, if you cheat, she has the "right" to leave you and empty your bank account.

You can say whatever you want, but there are consequences for your speech. Everyone else has the equal freedom of speech and RIGHT to not only disagree or condemn you if you say something wrong, stupid or in this case disrespectful, but speaking without responsibility can also get you beaten or jailed. If you say something to law enforcement, on an airplane, during a speech or in an environment where it is either inappropriate or illegal...you get consequences. Making threats against public officials (not saying you did...reminding you) can land you in jail and you'd deserve it.

Sure you can "say whatever you want" but accept the consequences.

Freedom of speech is not an anarchist right, there are laws and responsibilities and also issues of respect that should be adhered to.

"I can say what I want" shows a lot of immaturity and a lack of understanding what having a right actually means.

The Founders knew what they were doing when they set our laws and rights in place, they were very focused on the future of the nation as much as the establishment. Their principles of responsibilities accompanying freedoms still holds true, although the selfish society of today doesn't grasp the concept of maintaining freedom (fight for it) and even what to do with it while they have it. Courtesy, respect for authority and the nation have all gone away. You see it everywhere from that Nationals game to this morning when some blonde in a Toyota who was doing her hair in the rear-view mirror while driving cut me off without a turn signal because she was in a turning lane and wanted to go straight. Tearing down the position and Office of the Presidency by not showing proper respect because you don't personally like the man holding it not only looks bad to other nations, it looks bad to most people around you.

You said "Bottom　line is this: if you decide to throw out the first pitch in a liberal city with a 30 percent approval rating you get what's coming to you."

There were FAR MORE cheers then boos, so obviously even most liberals have more class than you and your ilk of vocal jerks.

In short, you can act like a jerk, but expect a verbal and sometimes a physical beating.


By the way, the Democrat-led Congress has had as low as a 10 percent approval rating, so apparently if you believe those media polls, he's doing a far better job than anyone else in Washington.

Thanks for the lesson but I'm well aware that there are consequences for everything. Personally I don't think that calling the president 'W' or even dumb for that matter is equivelant to yelling fire in a public place or threatening someone, wouldn't you agree?

I think you're really blowing this way out of proportion and missing the basic point of my argument.

As far as the first part in bold I didn't say that. Get your facts straight before trying to demonize someone.

The last part in bold shows me where your maturity level is at. Physical beating for acting like a jerk? What the hell are you talking about or implying?

You've done nothing but insult me on this thread rather than trying to have a civil discussion like the rest of us were doing before you decided to pipe in. Funny that you keep trying to toss me under the bus for being immature, yet here you are insulting me with every post. Maybe you need to reconsider who the jerk is.

[onlydarksets]

There are so many things wrong with your analysis.

Originally Posted by Buster

With rights come responsibilities.

You can carry a gun, you can't shoot it at people at random.

You can get married, if you cheat, she has the "right" to leave you and empty your bank account.

You can say whatever you want, but there are consequences for your speech. Everyone else has the equal freedom of speech and RIGHT to not only disagree or condemn you if you say something wrong, stupid or in this case disrespectful, but speaking without responsibility can also get you beaten or jailed. If you say something to law enforcement, on an airplane, during a speech or in an environment where it is either inappropriate or illegal...you get consequences. Making threats against public officials (not saying you did...reminding you) can land you in jail and you'd deserve it.

Sure you can "say whatever you want" but accept the consequences.

You've cited things that are illegal. Show me where it is illegal to call the president a prick or an idiot. Please, I'd love to see the cite to the U.S. Code or regulation.

Originally Posted by Buster

Freedom of speech is not an anarchist right, there are laws and responsibilities and also issues of respect that should be adhered to.

The first part of this statement is correct. The second part is a load of crap. Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. That, in itself, is a lack of respect.

Originally Posted by Buster

"I can say what I want" shows a lot of immaturity and a lack of understanding what having a right actually means.

Again, the first part is probably correct. The second part is hogwash.

Originally Posted by Buster

The Founders knew what they were doing when they set our laws and rights in place, they were very focused on the future of the nation as much as the establishment. Their principles of responsibilities accompanying freedoms still holds true, although the selfish society of today doesn't grasp the concept of maintaining freedom (fight for it) and even what to do with it while they have it. Courtesy, respect for authority and the nation have all gone away. You see it everywhere from that Nationals game to this morning when some blonde in a Toyota who was doing her hair in the rear-view mirror while driving cut me off without a turn signal because she was in a turning lane and wanted to go straight. Tearing down the position and Office of the Presidency by not showing proper respect because you don't personally like the man holding it not only looks bad to other nations, it looks bad to most people around you.

Putting the laughable analogy aside, just because you say booing Bush is s "tearing down the position and Office" doesn't mean that it is. If that's your personal view, then fine. It's not mine, and it's not many people's.

Originally Posted by Buster

You said "Bottom　line is this: if you decide to throw out the first pitch in a liberal city with a 30 percent approval rating you get what's coming to you."

I'm pretty sure he didn't.

Originally Posted by Buster

There were FAR MORE cheers then boos, so obviously even most liberals have more class than you and your ilk of vocal jerks.

Ad hominem attacks - very nice. Pretty much underscores that you don't have a valid point.

Originally Posted by Buster

In short, you can act like a jerk, but expect a verbal and sometimes a physical beating.

Verbal, sure - that's everyone's right where not proscribed by law. Physical? You have to be kidding.

Originally Posted by Buster

By the way, the Democrat-led Congress has had as low as a 10 percent approval rating, so apparently if you believe those media polls, he's doing a far better job than anyone else in Washington.

We're comparing degrees of failure? That's something to be proud of.

[SmootSmack]

It's illegal to make a threat, even if off-handed, but "I'd boo him" or "I wouldn't shake his hand" hardly qualifies as a threat.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

It's illegal to make a threat, even if off-handed, but "I'd boo him" or "I wouldn't shake his hand" hardly qualifies as a threat.

I know - I was very careful with how I worded my question. We're talking about what you call the president. I guess you could extend it to what you think of the president.

[MTK]

This thread has gone downhill and for that I apologize to everyone. Hopefully we can get it back on track because I thought yesterday we were having some quality discussion before someone decided to toss shit at the fan.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I know - I was very careful with how I worded my question. We're talking about what you call the president. I guess you could extend it to what you think of the president.

I'm in total agreement with you. Just expanding on your thoughts

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I didn't have time to read all 100 posts in this thread, but I did read the last two pages.

I'm upset about having an inept president, but I'm also upset about his being booed. It's no secret he has a low approval rating. He knows it, every citizen in the US knows it.

But this is the commander-in-chief of our country throwing out the first pitch on opening day in a brand new ball park in our nation's capital. I think whoever made the point about the "mob mentality" is correct. A few started, everyone else chimes in.

Booing this man at this event shows people's general lack of perspective. In my opinion the opening day first pitch is about the Presidency as a whole and tradition in our great nation. It's not about the fans' individual political alignment on that particular day. I was embarrassed to hear our President booed, even if our President is a man who's politics I drastically disagree with at this point.

100% accurate.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm in total agreement with you. Just expanding on your thoughts

Word.

[itvnetop]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What would you "prefer" if you had to choose though. A President who with good intentions but no clear plan or one with the wrong ideals but flawless execution? Of course, that maybe more of a hypothetical question that doesn't necessarily need to be answered here.

This is actually an excellent hypothetical SS... a little OT from the OP, but out of everything on this thread, this got me thinking the most.

This may sound weird, but I'd actually prefer the latter type of President. If he/she was elected in the first place, there's obvious sizable support for that platform. On the other hand, all Presidents face dissent- "wrong ideals" are somewhat subjective. Unless we're talking about a President who does a 180 from a platform he/she ran on once they are in office, we've elected someone whose ideals aren't going to be universal.

Specifically, I don't agree with GW's decision to invade Iraq (I'd have preferred to keep Sadaam in power, but that's an argument for another day). It's a given that (for whatever personal reasons), people either agree or disagree with such decisions. But even though I disagree with his decision, I expect the President to be successful in his execution. Perfect execution may be too much to ask, but with advisors at his disposal for such a magnanimous action, I'd want something close to flawless. And the results have been anything but.

To flip up the point, I'm a firm believer that universal health care wouldn't work in our country... imo, it's just not economically feasible with the unique factors inherent to the US, compared to the rest of the socialized health care world. But if Obama gets elected to office and he tries to reverse the entire industry from a private to a universal system, I'd expect him to execute it successfully.

[Redskins_P]

I actually find it amusing that the president was booed. I saw the whole thing live and I couldn't stop laughing.


But thats just me.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

He deserves to be booed everywhere he goes. Who cares what his job title is. I'm sure he's heard far worse.

Amen.

[dmek25]

welcome goat. and how did you come up with your name?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

Once again, only about half the people in the ballpark were actually booing him. In fact, the amount of people cheering for him vs. the amount of people booing was probably very respresentative of the amount of people that voted for him vs those that did not.

I can believe you guys who were actuallly there, and it does make me feel better, but the ESPN feed was producing cascading boos. I mean, you could hear some cheering, but you had to listen really, really closely.

I just wanted to see a baseball game.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

You sound like you'd be a great a communist. OOH BURN!! Democracy, get it or get out buddy.

why ? because i said it was disrespectful and classless to boo the president at the opening game of nats baseball ?

it's not the booing i disaprove of, it's where the booing took place.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

There are so many things wrong with your analysis.


You've cited things that are illegal. Show me where it is illegal to call the president a prick or an idiot. Please, I'd love to see the cite to the U.S. Code or regulation.


The first part of this statement is correct. The second part is a load of crap. Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. That, in itself, is a lack of respect.


Again, the first part is probably correct. The second part is hogwash.


Putting the laughable analogy aside, just because you say booing Bush is s "tearing down the position and Office" doesn't mean that it is. If that's your personal view, then fine. It's not mine, and it's not many people's.


I'm pretty sure he didn't.


Ad hominem attacks - very nice. Pretty much underscores that you don't have a valid point.


Verbal, sure - that's everyone's right where not proscribed by law. Physical? You have to be kidding.



We're comparing degrees of failure? That's something to be proud of.

Posted with support.

Journalists Gain Allies in Battle Against “Insult” Laws