OT: Bush on Freedom of Speech in China

[Hieronim]

Woman arrested for speaking freely right after Bush call for "freedom...to speak freely" -- and CNN calls it "a blemish" on Hu visit

Usually watching CNN with one eye as we blog from our undisclosed location doesn't give us much new fodder, except for the occasional "stuck landing gear" crisis. But today we are aghast at the coverage of Chinese President Hu Jintao at the White House.

At an outdoor ceremony, Bush told Hu:

China has become successful because the Chinese people are experience the freedom to buy, and to sell, and to produce -- and China can grow even more successful by allowing the Chinese people the freedom to assemble, to speak freely, and to worship.

Seconds later, one of the people assembled on the White House south lawn actually tried to speak freely right here in America -- about both the lack of free speech and religious freedom in China.

That free-speaking woman was promptly hauled off and arrested

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/20/D8H3Q198C.html

[shrub]

Should anybody be allowed to disrupt any speech at any time in any occasions?

[shirkers1]

Should anybody be allowed to disrupt any speech at any time in any occasions?

Way to miss the point master of grammar.

Hieronim great post I read that earlier today and just laughed. It's a shame that president short bus has been able to run free on this world, running this country into the ground has become his hobby. :mad:

[FuXnDajenariht]

its a ****in comedy. am i wrong for sometimes thinkin we should be put out our misery? :rolleyes:

[shirkers1]

"Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin said that she had been charged with disorderly conduct and that a charge of intimidating or disrupting foreign officials was also being considered."

To say that it's even being considered is shocking.

I'm watching the video now of what happened. I don't have a direct link but you can view it by going to http://www.crooksandliars.com/

[Radhnoti]

If she'd have called her own press conference, she'd have been allowed to say whatever she wanted. She could write a blog and say whatever she wants. She could write a letter to the editor and (from what I've seen in most papers) it would certainly be published.
Instead, she tried to infringe upon someone ELSE'S right to speak and the right of the people who were there SPECIFICALLY to hear what he said to do so. Just because no one is interested in what you have to say doesn't give you the right to disrupt the speech of others.

I also wouldn't support Rush Limbaugh breaking into the Democratic National Convention (or more appropriately a Ted Kennedy press conference) and telling everyone what he thinks. It's wrong, and it would be appropriate for him to be arrested.

[Judge Pen]

Way to bring that point home, Rad. How have things been?

[GLW]

I could see her being asked to leave...

But being arrested and then them thinking of other charges is an example of how NOT to walk the walk.

Of course, if Bush were TRULY a man who believed in Freedom of Speech and Democracy, he would have his staff make a simple phone call and ask for the person to be released with no charges... Now THAT would make headlines and show him being a believer in what he was saying....and I won't hold my breath.

[shirkers1]

If she'd have called her own press conference, she'd have been allowed to say whatever she wanted. She could write a blog and say whatever she wants. She could write a letter to the editor and (from what I've seen in most papers) it would certainly be published.
Instead, she tried to infringe upon someone ELSE'S right to speak and the right of the people who were there SPECIFICALLY to hear what he said to do so. Just because no one is interested in what you have to say doesn't give you the right to disrupt the speech of others.

I also wouldn't support Rush Limbaugh breaking into the Democratic National Convention (or more appropriately a Ted Kennedy press conference) and telling everyone what he thinks. It's wrong, and it would be appropriate for him to be arrested.


Point noted. But if president short bus would ever hold a "public" forum so that someone other than the hand picked audience could attend maybe they would get a more rounded view on how americans feel about how this country is being run and who we are doing bussiness with. So how can americans voice their opinions if they aren't given a forum to do so? That's the whole point of freedom to protest etc. F Hu, he isn't a citizen of this country and I'm sorry but I could give two ****s about his feelings. This is a communist country who doesn't care about human rights. The USA is sending our jobs over there, and people are walking around with their $300 IPods made in china strapped to their waists while johnny america struggles to support his family because there are a lack of jobs, and the cost of living has sky rocketed here.

You could be sure as shiat that if it were christians being oppressed we'd be attacking china with a quickness.

[neilhytholt]

It's apples and oranges. There's freedom of speech, and then there's trespassing and going somewhere you're not supposed to be.

If people don't understand the distinction, then they should try to.

Plus, speech isn't 'free' here in the U.S.A. Everybody knows if you want something on T.V. or the media you have to pay fees and get a commercial, and it has to pass FCC and FTC rules and all that.

Even blogs and stuff can't post copyrighted stuff or slander, etc.

[Radhnoti]

Good JP. Busy, but good. How's married life treating you?

shirkers1 - "So how can americans voice their opinions if they aren't given a forum to do so?"
Do you ever read almost any newspaper, watch any network newscast or any non-Fox cable news network? No Constitutional right exists saying that every screaming POV has to be LISTENED to, in fact there's no way a nationwide audience could listen to every voice. There's a right way to go about it, and obviously this person wasn't taken seriously enough by even those who share her opinion to be given the opportunity to express their viewpoint to a larger audience the RIGHT way.

shirkers1 - "The USA is sending our jobs over there, and people are walking around with their $300 IPods made in china strapped to their waists while johnny america struggles to support his family because there are a lack of jobs, and the cost of living has sky rocketed here."

In the same sentence where you talk about a lack of jobs, etc. you mention that everyone owns a $300 IPod...do you begin to see how crazy that sounds? Unemployment in the U.S. in currently 5/6%...statistically thats almost equivilent to NO unemployment. Your communist comment makes you sound somewhat unreasonable as well...at least to my ear.

neilhytholt - "Even blogs and stuff can't post copyrighted stuff or slander, etc."

And yet shirkers1 can refer to the leader of this country as "president short bus". Sounds like freedom of speech to me...and I totally support his right to say that AND the President's right to pursue a slander lawsuit should he choose to do so. :)

[mantis108]

The ceremony was not up to par:

miss announced anthem. (Confused Republic of China [aiwan] as People's Republic of China). This is serious blunder.

An allegation of only 19 guns instead of 21 guns of salute was heard.

Visiting dignitary's speech in a formal reception being interupted.

All these are serious breach of protocol. It also shows that the Bush administration is very careless about diplomatic details. But it's no surprise since Mr Bush has demonstrationed time after time his signture management style - management by negligance. BTW, that happened to Canada as well (they mixed-up the current Prime Minister Harper with former PM Martin more than once in a live commentary) :eek:

It would seem that the Bush administration failed in matters great and small and making a great country looking like a Mikey Mouse Republic. :( Mr Bush has consistently showing signs of contempt of his office and responsibilities given to him by democratic electors. He or the majority of American public for that matter may not think much of even disapprove China, but there is no excuse in neglecting diplomatic details. In this case, the real laugh is certainly not on China but on the USA. I wonder what's going to happen in the next 3 years. :confused:

Mantis108

[neilhytholt]

This has to be the worst administration yet. They seem to forget that it was under Bush's watch that 9/11 happened. And Katrina happened. (leaving out the obvious Afghanistan/Iraq).

Yet everybody still defends Bush.

Oh, well, better than Clinton publicly putting down China right in front of the premier's face.

[Yum Cha]

Legal Issues:

Free Speech in America is governed by rules and case law concerning libel, obscenity, invasion of privacy and more. There are laws against advocating the violent overthrow of a the government, and public mayhem, i.e. shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Free speech is allowed in a public forum, and many places may be deemed a public forum, primarily, public places frequented by the public, like downtown, there have been cases where private shopping centers have been deemed "public forums" because they have become "default" public gathering places.

As for heckling at a "public" event, I think it would be hard to make a case against first amendment protection. Heckling at a private event would probably be different. I'd sure like to hear the arguments. However, I wouldn't put it past the current administration to simply "disappear" the problem....you know, the gitmo solution...Its hard to trust the rule of law these days.

Trespassing - if the person was allowed in, is that trespassing? I dunno...I'm just regurgitating my old Journalism lessons.....

Political Rant:

Hi Rat...

So, just because you and all your buddies have $300 iPods to play with, doesn't mean everybody does, but it certainly gives a bit of insight into your frame of reference....

As for American unemployment figures....what a joke. How do you measure the unemployed when you only count the people on benefits, not including the people whose benefits have run out, or people who are chronically unemployed, disabled or otherwise unemployable?

Also, the US has millions of working poor. People who have jobs, sometimes two, but can't earn enough to rise above the poverty line. These are a phenomenon of the Bush Administration.

And next up for the milking, the middle class - like the programmers getting their jobs outsourced to India, welcome to the new world order. Batter UP!

You can't really blame the Administration though, they are just doing what they were elected to do in the democratic process. All right, show of hands, who was conned by the "Gay Marriage" ploy??

So, next time you vote, figuring you'd rather have unmarried h0m0s, a tax cut and penniless Crack Mothers, just hope you are still making enough money to pay tax, and that your family isn't on the cusp of needing assistance to survive as you work your two jobs for an incompetent management team that squeeze your wages down to earn their multi-million dollar management bonuses, and pump their contributions into the candidates that promise to help them do just that in the name of progress and economic prosperity.

Don't be sucker and think that they are including you. There are enough dumbsh1ts out there already who swallowed that whopper, and look at what happened.

Fall of the Roman Empire. The way China has cowered Bush, you better learn to speak Mandarin quickly.

shea shea

[Radhnoti]

neilhytholt, you ARE aware that the 9/11 attacks were planned during a different administration, right? And do you really blame the Katrina situation ENTIRELY on Bush, leaving the Democratic local officials off the hook? You are aware that FL had like 4 or 5 hurricanes the year before and didn't even ask for any federal assistance, right?

Yum Cha, It's ridiculous the way you're blaming the current administration for everything. A lot of it is just the increasing globalization of the world economy.
Jobs to India? Which administration do you think really got the ball rolling on that? And NAFTA? I'm not knocking globalization, but to play that like it's specific issue to the Bush administration is a misrepresentation. Things were pretty much the same during the Clinton administration (minus gas prices, perhaps) and it's still heralded as one the great economies. You think they're using a different measuring stick today than they did then to get those employment numbers? Or that people weren't working multiple jobs?

Finally, I live in Appalachia-South East Kentucky to be specific. It's going to be hard for you to find a more consistently economically depressed region in the U.S. And, yes, almost anyone I know can buy an IPod...and almost anyone can get a job, flipping burgers if nothing else. According to the most recent Census via MSNBC, 95% of the people living below the poverty line in the U.S. have a refrigerator...More than 92% of Americans below the poverty line said they had enough food. Some 86% said they had no unmet need for a doctor, 89% had no roof leaks, and 87% said they had no unpaid rent or mortgage. 2/3 have air conditioners, 60% have computers, more than 98% have COLOR TVs. Comparing 1992 to 2002 almost all luxury items owned by BELOW poverty line families had increased. Alas, no IPod data yet. :)
If you want to go beyond manual labor the federal grants WILL get you through a college if you're willing to work hard enough to keep a decent GPA, my nephew is doing that now. Or you can go the route of borrowing the money if you're willing to go into debt (in effect investing in yourself) and pay it back later as my wife did.

But, yeah, things are terrible and getting worse. :rolleyes:

I'm not voting Republican next election, but it's because of the out of control spending we've got by giving them exclusive control...and I'm a bit worried about portions of the Patriot Act. The good thing about Clinton was that he was thwarted by the 2 arms of government he didn't control and he thwarted them as well. That's really the BEST thing that can happen for our country, in my opinion.
The trick is going to be figuring out how to give the Dems just enough to reign in the Republicans.

[neilhytholt]

neilhytholt, you ARE aware that the 9/11 attacks were planned during a different administration, right? And do you really blame the Katrina situation ENTIRELY on Bush, leaving the Democratic local officials off the hook? You are aware that FL had like 4 or 5 hurricanes the year before and didn't even ask for any federal assistance, right?


When Bush came in, it was obvious that he was interested in two very basic things: a) re-introducing conservative values to the United States and b) getting Iraq.

One of the first things he did, that I can't remember any administration doing, was visit Hollywood along with Cheney and meet with the movie moguls about creating movies that were more patriotic and along the line with family values and all that. Some of the outcome of that was 'A Walk to Remember', and some war movies, 'The Recruit' and all that.

But it was obvious that he didn't pay any attention to the terror threat. All the conspiracy stuff aside, they knew that Al Qaeda was a threat for a long time, and they did very little to nothing about it. Clinton actually ordered airstrikes and seemed to be much more on top of that.

In addition, Bush put many of his friends in power, replacing people who were better at their jobs and had earned those jobs. He put as many of his friends in position of power as he could, reportedly moreso than any other administration.

So I'm sorry if I think he was responsible for the lax response to Katrina, but I do. By putting his friends in office instead of people who knew what to do and were responsible, he caused, perhaps inadvertently, but still caused the slow disaster response.

Look at what they're doing in Iraq? Throwing $$$ around like water and getting no results.

Anyway, that's the end of my political rant. Talking about politics and religion just leads to trouble.

[Radhnoti]

A republican came in and replaced people who'd been put in place by a (hostile at the time, remember FL?) democratic previous administration. If the guy working for you hates you, you'd be foolish not to replace him before he does something to hurt you.
You don't remember any other administration courting Hollywood?!? Are you kidding me? Lots of Hollywood types call Clinton "Bill" and how many of them stayed in the Lincoln bedroom? I know Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand stayed for certain... Hollywood loves Democrat presidents...look at how many campaigned for Kerry.

Iraq getting no results? If you listen to nightly news casts that would seem to be the case, but you know the only news they're interested in reporting is casualties and setbacks. They've had elections, they've got infrastructure like roads, water, electricity, schools... and a lot of the country is better off now than before. Ask a soldier that's just come back why we aren't accomplishing anything over there and you might get punched. The nay-sayers HERE are hurting the war effort, in my opinion. I support their right to say negative things, but if they REALLY cared it'd be better to not present such a divided national sentiment. We're there, no Democratic hopeful (with any hope for election) advocates quick withdrawal...it'd just be better to say, "We blame Bush...we're not leaving until we win, but it's his fault." I'd respect that.

[neilhytholt]

You don't remember any other administration courting Hollywood?!? Are you kidding me? Lots of Hollywood types call Clinton "Bill" and how many of them stayed in the Lincoln bedroom? I know Steven Spielberg and Barbra Streisand stayed for certain... Hollywood loves Democrat presidents...look at how many campaigned for Kerry.

Iraq getting no results? If you listen to nightly news casts that would seem to be the case, but you know the only news they're interested in reporting is casualties and setbacks. They've had elections, they've got infrastructure like roads, water, electricity, schools... and a lot of the country is better off now than before. Ask a soldier that's just come back why we aren't accomplishing anything over there and you might get punched. The nay-sayers HERE are hurting the war effort, in my opinion. I support their right to say negative things, but if they REALLY cared it'd be better to not present such a divided national sentiment. We're there, no Democratic hopeful (with any hope for election) advocates quick withdrawal...it'd just be better to say, "We blame Bush...we're not leaving until we win, but it's his fault." I'd respect that.

They wanted $$$ from Hollywood. They didn't give Hollywood an agenda, I don't think.

As for the Iraq thing, just look at Afghanistan. If we somehow manage to get Iraq stable like Afghanistan, they will still have a Muslim regime. Muslim law isn't exactly democracy and doesn't have religious freedom. So what's the point? There is no point.

[Forkintheroad]

It's hard to blame Bush for 9/11 (even though he did take the entire month of August off), and as far as blaming him for a natural disaster is also somewhat harsh. The problems I have with Bush is that he is the only president to miss the the majority of public burials for the of fallen soldiers at the outset of the war who died under his hand for his greed. Not to mention he went off and invaded a second nation with out finishing what he started in afghanastan (the war no one opposed). As for China, I would be very concerned with their "feelings" as when we do invade Iran, we don't want them sympathetic to the Iranians because of China's oil interest (It's only been the past 20 or years or so that the've been car crazy like us, and with a billion people or so, they might make a dent in the oil buying process). Not to mention their the only country we have that is also on talking terms with N. Korea, and our only chance at a diplomatic resolution with them. At the outset of the Iraqi war it was WMA's, which we now know don't exist (we know they could've made them because we showed them how when they where at war with Iran), but they didn't/ haven't since gasing the Kurds. Then it was for their freedom which I don't see how you can free a county with what amounts to a bomb a minute (at the beginning of the war there where estimated 1200 missles launched, and or bombs dropped every day) in a country the size of Texas. Freedom has to be earned by them, like we earned it from Britian, and then from the confederacy we should've split that country into three countries and then let them go at it until only 1 remained. Oh by the way when was the last time the administration even mentioned Bin Ladden? or the fact that the day after 9/11 the only commercial flight flown was to transport the 13 members of the Bin Ladden family to Saudi Arabia from the US. No interogation of them, or any questioning just a free pass out. As for this current war I don't like the fact no lines where ever drawn. As of now anyone threatening the american way is suspect, which is like the war on drugs, and the war to overturn non democratic governments. This is a war that can be brought to any countries door step, and a war that requires american citizens to give up certain freedoms, and rights in the name of safety. We saw how these type of wars went when we fought in Vietnam, Korea, the cold war with Russia, to the war on drugs. When your fighting a word (ie. drugs, communist's, terrorist's) your probobly not going to win. Right now where taking the offensive, and saying where defending the iraqi people from other iraqi's, or insurgents if they don't belong to the political party we want to see get elected.

I got somewhat side tracked bad mouthing Bush. Anyway as for freedom of speach, how much freedom do we have? All our news outlets are Republican Conservative. Just look at how often you hear the words liberal media, or the dreaded Far Left. Where is this liberal media? Fox Cnn, Abc Nbc? are these liberal or are you talking about Howard Stern and Fruit Cake **** shows? In China it openly censored, where as here it censored by station owners. If the Chinese want the freedom of speech let them voice for it.
Well on a lighter note, how's everyone's training going.

[Radhnoti]

neilhytholt, they didn't have to hand Hollywood an agenda...their agenda was/is the same.

Forkintheroad, I pretty much agree with you. I'm a little less critical of going into Iraq since 90% of the world intel community was saying Iraq had WMDs....and what do you consider "undone" about Afghanistan? Just nailing Bin Laden? Things are going pretty well over there if you look at the big picture.
I also agree that any security we have to trade freedom for isn't worth it. The open-endedness of the "War on Terror" is disturbing...like the "War on Drugs" it's very possible the willingness of the U.S. citizens to do anything to wage this war will be abused.

I COMPLETELY disagree with your assessment that most media outlets are Republican Conservative. Fox News is pretty obviously aiming at that segment and I DO feel they lean that way...but talk radio is the only other outlet I'd call primarily conservative.
CNN? They had to admit to doctoring video to make "assault weapons" seem more damaging than "sporting weapons" of the SAME caliber. Anti-gun with no apology, only one example of many CNN biases. CBS? Here's a good website with just a few examples of his bias...not including the made up story he still says he's sure was true, even with no supporting evidence:
http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/2005/nq20050228.asp
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.”
Primarily liberal media bias, I thought, was pretty much universally accepted as a fact in the U.S....

[Yum Cha]

Hey Rad,
So much of this is "he said, she said" that its not really worth debating, but you certainly made a good point, and one I can almost agree with. Oh, did you know that 86% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

We agree that it's time to vote for some Democrats, as things are just getting out of control. You reckon there should be only enough Dems to reign in the Repubs, I reckon there should only be enough Repubs to reign in the Dems, and at that point I think we should pour tea and kick back for a bit of a grin. Neither side has earned the trust they demand.

Both sides err. But, it seems that when the Dems err, we end up with some overspending. When Repubs err, we end up with ideological nut-cases implementing unrealistic real-world applications of their ideology, AND overspending.

Ask yourself a couple of questions:

Why did Bin Laden wait until the Bush Administration to launch his attack?

Due to the "Strong" Bush Administration response, has his ideology spread or diminished?

Is the American way of life stronger or weaker as a result of the Bush Administration's reaction to the "Terrorists".

Is the economy stronger or weaker than before 911?

Why do 90% of the American troops think they are in Iraq to pay Saddam back for attacking the trade towers?

And lets not even look into the rest of the basket of domestic issues....

Argue as we might about the causes, motivations and opportunites and restraints, the bottom line is the Report Card is full of "D" grades. And by any measure, the talk has not equated with the walk.

They had their chance, and they porked it badly, really badly. Even their own are turning on them and it is with no small amount of mirth I say that.

The good thing about politics is that it evolves, and at least it looks like we're fixing to evolve a little with the mid-terms.

[Radhnoti]

Yum Cha - "Oh, did you know that 86% of all statistics are made up on the spot? "

:D

Things were put into motion for 9/11 and I don't think the administration would have made a difference either way.

We disagree on specifics, but end up at the same place. The country truly might be in a better place if we'd had Kerry, just because he probably would have opposed lots of Republican spending.

The Republicans are really in trouble this time around. The spending I've mentioned, plus their refusal to enforce the laws with illegal immigration issues has alienated their base. It's funny the way folks with a liberal bent think the Republicans have messed up one way and those with a conservative bent think they've messed up in another. In effect they've satisfied no one. I predict a very low turnout for republicans and/or conservative voters.

Yum Cha - "...I think we should pour tea and kick back for a bit of a grin. Neither side has earned the trust they demand."

Agreed. My kingdom for a viable third party.