Ideal Chance For Bush To Put Teeth In His Outlawing Of War Protests

So if her assets are not seized than can we safely admit that the hysteria regarding the outlawing of protests was misplaced and well....actually wrong???? Just curious

"So if her assets are not seized than can we safely admit that the hysteria regarding the outlawing of protests was misplaced and well....actually wrong???? Just curious"

about as much as we can safely expect you to stop peppering vive with non sequiturs and Spurious Similarity

Non Sequitur:
something that just does not follow. For example, "Tens of thousands of Americans have seen lights in the night sky which they could not identify. The existence of life on other planets is fast becoming certainty!"

Another example: arguing at length that your religion is of great help to many people. Then, concluding that the teachings of your religion are undoubtably true.

Or: "Bill lives in a large building, so his apartment must be large." It is the latter that I see applying to you


Argument From Spurious Similarity:
this is a relative of Bad Analogy. It is suggested that some resemblance is proof of a relationship. There is a WW II story about a British lady who was trained in spotting German airplanes. She made a report about a certain very important type of plane. While being quizzed, she explained that she hadn't been sure, herself, until she noticed that it had a little man in the cockpit, just like the little model airplane at the training class.
Reifying:



---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

Please show me specifically how my argument is non sequitur. It has been stated on here the Bush has outlawed protests....I have asked numerous times for someone....anyone to show me where he has done this (to no avail of course). And you have what is stated as the prime opportunity for Bush to show his true evilness....all I am saying is that if Clinton's assets are seized then you and everyone else who assume that Bush has outlawed protests must be wrong. If her assets are seized then i would have no problem coming on here and admitting that i am wrong....just asking for a little intellectual honesty here thats all......

Edit....If Clinton's assets are not seized

In BC two elderly women were arrested for protesting peacefully, both were sent to prison and one died prematurely as result.<br />
<br />
When bad "laws" (if you can call them laws) are put on paper we should all get concerned, and just because only few people end up having their lives ruined under the banner of a bad law, does not make a bad law any less frightening.<br />
<br />
Bad laws are first and foremost put in place to frighten people away, and the few who will have their assets seized will be carefully chosen to be in the most disadvantageous class. We may never even get to hear about seizures, and certainly not without access to the Internet.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-4.html">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-4.html</a><br />

I totally agree with your point about bad laws....My problem is that people are saying this executive order outlaws protests....I continually ask for them to show me how it does this since I have read it and cannot find anything in it that would lead one to believe that is what it is saying. Protests are happening here.....nobody is having their assets seized so my point is that maybe all the people who think this are wrong....and if they are wrong...why are they so afraid to just admit it and say they were mistaken.

....all I am saying is that if Clinton's assets are not seized then you and everyone else who assume that Bush has outlawed protests must be wrong."

etwardoz, failure to enforce or employ a legal remedy does not mean the law doesn't exist, nor does it nullify it's potential future use. All it means is that at THIS point in time, in THIS instance, the law was NOT brought to bear. The predictability factor of someone elses assets at a future date being seized is close enough to zero to call it. Now if the law stood for decades and was never used to seize assets, you might get that link you claim. Kind of like a game of chicken, let's see if Bush blinks first.

The reason it will not be enforced is because there is no law that says that protests are outlawed. Many people here are reading into the executive order something that is not there. Again...all i am asking for a a little intellectual honesty. Protests are allowed here...they have not been outlawed and they will continue to happen....so if that is all true then everyone who believe that this executive order outlaws protests must be mistaken. It is quite simple really. I have even included on the original article links to upcoming protests. Obviously if these protests happen then one would have to surmise that protests continue to be legal here in America.

"My problem is that people are saying this executive order outlaws protests....I continually ask for them to show me how"

Right here ...

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:


Let me break it up for you to show how this clause was carefully written to outlaw protests while at the same time reassuring people such as yourself that it does not...

(i) ... or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

According to the text, you don't actually have to do anything violent, all it takes is "a significant risk" which can mean just about anything. It's just a question of if Bush will make a move on this threatening "law" (which the American constitution forbids) or not.

There's more ...

"acts of violence" that have the purpose or effect of"

What's an act of violence? Governments are well known for planting their own 'protesters' into crowds who then start up some needed violence.

It is very easy for Bush to engineer a violent protest that is used to have the events organizers assets seized. It is another matter for those who have been wronged to defend themselves in court to get back what was lost. Even if they win their court case, and even if they win a lawsuit against Bush (i.e., the government), Bush and his goons will end up suffering absolutely no consequence for their illegal actions, and the only people who will be made to pay for it all, will be the American people.

Here's another part...

"...that have the purpose or effect of"

A protest against the annexation of Iraq has precisely the purpose or effect specified in sections A and B.

Protesting is not against the law here in Canada either, yet two elderly BC women went to prison for protesting peacefully.

Would it not be better to err on the side of vigilance with the US administration as with ALL governments?<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thebrigg.net/?p=7">http://www.thebrigg.net/?p=7</a><br />
<br />
"Thomas Jefferson once said “the price of freedom is eternal<br />
vigilance”. He was not referring to vigilance of potential outside enemies<br />
of the country, he was referring to vigilance of our own elected leaders. In<br />
dictatorships, the public has no right to speak out, and no right to monitor<br />
the leader(s)."<br />
<br />
<br />
Foir you to make the demands you have smacks of an arrogance borne of ignorance <br />
It is and has been the nature of all government to assume power over the electorate <br />
The USA is no differnt in this respect.<br />
Blind obeince to what is called "country" is enslavement of the mind <br />
and more deserving of Archie Bunker than flesh and blood men.<br />
You can play your game of 20 questions or you can keep a sharp eye out for the threat of internal terror<br />
anything else is mental masturbation and if that suits you it is best done in solitude <br />
<p>---<br>"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."<br />
<br />
William Blake<br />
<br />

"...all i am asking for a a little intellectual honesty."
as have all who've responded to you.
Your asking for intellectual honest ought to start with the liars who told you and your countrymen that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or Saddam was tied to Osama.


---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

I would be interested in what you think the order was written for? If necessity is the mother of invention what is driving this puppy? That a order isn't being executed doesn't have the effect of neutering it, the potential is still there for future use. That was my point.