Welcome to PatsFans.com

Article from Boise Idaho, is this fascism.....

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by DarrylS, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,428
    Likes Received:
    138
    Ratings:
    +267 / 10 / -26

    A veteran gets harassed in Boise for his opposition to the Iraq Mess and even includes a transcript of his questioning by Dept of Homeland Security Folks, I guess if you are a federal employee you loose your first amendment rights....

    http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:158729

    On February 7, Scarbrough went to his job like any other day. He is a scientist with a federal agency in Boise--one that is part of the executive branch, ironically--and he parked in his usual spot, just outside of the federal Natural Resource Center on Vinnell Way in Boise, kitty corner to a Wal-Mart, a Lowe's Home Improvement Center and a 21-screen Edwards cineplex. Made up of two large, square brick buildings, the complex houses a variety of federal offices including the Social Security Administration, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, among others. But despite the fact that most of the employees in the complex can, at least officially, consider George W. Bush their boss, Scarbrough has taken remarkably little grief for his strident anti-Bush views and props. Even those who don't agree with his message usually tolerate it.

    Once, last year, some conservative-minded ladies objected about the "BU****" sticker in Scarbrough's passenger-side window. Scarbrough and his supervisor reviewed all the federal rules concerning bumper stickers on employee vehicles, and discovered that nothing he had displayed could be considered illegal. But for once, Scarbrough simply removed the sticker. Indeed, his current lineup is quite sparse by his standards, he says.

    But on this day, apparently it was still too much.

    Around 2:15 p.m., Scarbrough says, he answered his office phone and found himself talking to a man who identified himself as Officer R. of the Department of Homeland Security. (I'm withholding the officer's name; you know, what with Plamegate and all.) Scarbrough was told that he was in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations, the set of rules that govern all executive departments and agencies, and that he was in danger of being cited unless he came out to the parking lot or let the officer come up to his office. Scarbrough chose the first option, and took along a co-worker--also a veteran--and, being an experienced peace activist, a tape recorder. Downstairs, they found two armed officers with "Homeland Security" insignia patches on their shoulders, waiting for them in large white SUVs. Scarbrough informed the officers that he would record their conversation, and what follows is the transcript of that recording.
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Yep, that's fascism, alright. If there is such a law, that's fascist in itself. But you'll have a hard time getting the DoHS to keep terrorist nations from running our port facilities.

    Why the hell did the guy comply with the order? What kind of a citizen is he? His capitulation to the thugs is another brick in the wall. He calls himself an "activist"? Pussie is more like it.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2006
  3. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,843
    Likes Received:
    172
    Ratings:
    +549 / 2 / -9

    There is another side to a story like that one, many US Servicemen today don't like wearing their uniform in public, they get nasty remarks and dirty looks from people who agree with "your guy"

    During the Viet Nam War a young soldier in Cambridge Ma was beaten nearly to death by a group of those smelly "Fonda People" simply for walking down the street in his Army Uniform. Would this be considered "FACISM"?
  4. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    You need to look up the word "facism". The word you're looking for is "battery".

    I do understand your point, but it's not the government prohibiting freedom of speech. And it's certainly not relevant to the post.

    Forcing people to remove bumper stickers because they ridicule the President is facism. It's not supposed to happen in the US. If the guy had a window sticker that said "Bush/Cheney", nothing would have happened to him.

    My father-in-law threw a guy through a plate glass window at the San Francisco Airport for spitting on him when he was on his way to Nam. The cops on the scene asked my f-i-l if HE wanted to press charges for A&B.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2006
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,843
    Likes Received:
    172
    Ratings:
    +549 / 2 / -9

    My point is, why do the sore losing liberals get all bent out of shape because someone gets upset over an Anti American bumper sticker but look the other way when our servicemen are ridiculed for simply being a soldier.

    God Bless your father in law, I wonder if that was one of Kerry's friends he threw through the window. :rocker:
  6. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    Because one is a stupid group of citizens, and one is the federal government. Of course I care that a soldier (or anybody) gets harassed or beat for no good reason. But we both know that some people are a@@holes. When the government doesn't tolerate free speech against it, that's a separate issue.
  7. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There's a 21 screen cineplex in Boise, Idaho? Holy smokes!!!
  8. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I read the article and transcript -- you guys are nuts if you think this is an example of fascism. If, instead of anti-war, anti-Bush signs and stickers, he had signs and stickers saying things like "Jesus is Lord" and "Repent or you will burn in Hell" and "Jesus is the way the truth and the life", you all would be screaming for that person to be forced to remove those signs from Federal property; that if the government doesn't do something about it, it represents government establishment of religion; that it's bigotry; blah blah blah... (And that's exactly what regulations like what is mentioned in the article are about.) But because it's a message you agree with coming from a philosophical vantage point you share, suddenly it's bigotry and fascism.

    This thing could have been avoided entirely if he just parked in the WalMart parking lot -- then his whole truck could be one giant bumper sticker and nobody would say a word. But it's pretty obvious to me that this guy wants confrontation, he likes confrontation, and has a harrassment complex.
  9. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    You are so wrong on this one, it's not funny. I am a federal employee. The article mentions the Hatch Act. Look that one up.

    Someone's car is not Federal Property, regardless where it's parked, unless it is a government vehicle. There is a law expressly permitting bumper stickers on one's vehicle in a government parking lot. Plenty of people have conservative or Christian messages on their car so what? They're allowed on government property, as they should be. I bet if someone had an "Islam #1" or Calvin pissing on a bible window sticker, you wouldn't be so tolerant.

    Re-read this passage: It would also be news to the dozens of people parked in the Natural Resource Complex with bumper stickers reading, among other sentiments, "My Dad is a Marine," "Create Peace," "POW/ MIA," and others of both the pro-choice and pro-life variety.


    The issue here is that the Federal Government is ignoring Federal Law because of anti-Bush stickers. This is a problem. I figured this was one instance that would get bi-partisan agreement.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2006
  10. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,606
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +12 / 0 / -0

    I find it odd that DHS would go through all that trouble over bumper stickers? I think there would have to be more to the story then what is being reported in this article. Is he part of a group or a militia who has stated goals of overthrowing this government? If so they could be just trying to mess with him a little. As you know that would bar you from having a clearance and would definitly eliminate you from federal employment. Just a thought!
  11. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'm a federal employee too, though admittedly on a military base, the rules are likely different than where you are. Here, the government reserves the right to limit what messages are on stickers, T-shirts, etc. Anything that advocates racism, government takeover, terrorism, or similar things are banned outright no matter how tactfully they are presented. Other things such as religion and politics (but not limited to that) are allowable, depending on the tone. If it's rabid, or patently offensive, it's forbidden.

    Just so you know, an Islam #1 or Calvin-pissing-on-Bible sticker on a car wouldn't offend me personally, and they wouldn't make me any less tolerant. It would just tell me something about the person driving the car. I'd be far more likely to be offended at a sticker saying "Soldiers are butchers' or "Marines are murderers" or something like that.

    Nobody ever made the claim that any car on Federal property is Federal property. In the article, both the guy and the HS officers agreed that moving the car off the lot would solve the problem. Also in the article, the discussion seemed to center around signs as distinct from bumper stickers.

    At any rate, I stand by my original comment. This guy wants to be in your face, is looking for confrontation, wants confrontation, likes confrontation, and likes playing the harrassment card. And this episode is not an indication of fascism.
  12. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    I'm in Washington. There may well be different rules for military bases. And likely different rules for civilians on bases than military. It basically sounds like hate speech and sedition are prohibited. I'm OK with that as it applies to current federal law. It still seems that an anti-Bush sticker would be allowed on the base, if unwise.

    Yes, the guy could have parked elsewhere and avoided the situation, but why should he be forced to walk further than someone else because of his politics?

    Is the guy a rabble-rouser or media whore? Possibly. I'm not sure it changes things though.
  13. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Washington state?

    I think if someone else showed up to work in that same parking lot with a car simliarly decked out in signs that were equally, um, enthusiastic in their denunciation of Senators Murry and Cantwell, Democrats, liberals, etc., that person and his/her car would receive the same treatment. So I would disagree with you that it's about the guy's politics, it's more about the inappropriate expression of his politics.
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    They would both be fascist acts IMO, but the difference is these goons were uniformed, armed representatives of the state that has the power to arrest, imprison, or kill you if you took a swing at them or otherwise resisted them. People objecting to religious stickers may be fascist in thought, but they can't take away your freedom.

    The whole thing would have been avoided if these cops or whatever they are had read the Constitution and understood it. This guy was in no way required to move his truck or obey any of these creeps orders. That's why we live here and not in a police state like Idaho (or do we?).
  15. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, there are *******s who harrass the military. But they're not doing it on behalf of the government of the United States, with the power to cite and arrest behind them. The law could not be any more clear on this issue: bumper stickers are OK? How could it be anything BUT harassment?
  16. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Oh good grief. The guy did resist them, and was neither arrested, imprisoned or killed. To call this fascism is to declare that you don't know what fascism is.

    The Constitution explicitly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that no-one shall be deprived of life without due process, but people on the left side of the political spectrum consistantly support gun control and abortion. Where is your accusation of fascism on these topics? Do you think these things could be solved by people just reading the Constitution and understanding it?


    Your reaction strikes me as being just a little over the top.
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I agree this doesn't stack up to what REAL fascists have done, but why do you want to make apologies for something that's clearly wrong? If you disagree with today's interpertation of the second amendment, does that mean we should throw the rest of the constitution out? And even if it's not because of point of view (he might have gotten the same visit if he had a "Bush is the Greatest" on his car), the federal agents are CLEARLY breaking the law. There's no way to twist that to make it OK.
  18. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It's NOT clear to me that the agents were breaking the law. They never roughed the guy up, and they didn't verbally abuse him. From the transcript, it sounded like they were being very professional in engaging the guy. It seemed the disagreement (and the law) wasn't about bumper stickers, it was about signs. Certainly what was on his truck did not qualify as bumper stickers.

    Now, if you want to contend that any law against signs should be unconstitutional, that's a seperate discussion -- but if you want to go down that road, you'd better be prepared for religion on public property in all kinds of forms.


    By the way, I find it interesting that you refer to "today's interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, and by extension, the rest of the Constitution. That's kind of the crux of the matter, is it not? (Why the clear words of the Constitution need to be interpreted is another matter...)
  19. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    At the risk of getting off topic, maybe because things like AK-47s didn't exist when the Constitution was written. I don't think Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, etc. had going to a gun store and buying a machine gun in mind when putting in a provision preventing a brutal military ruling class ever taking control of the new nation.

    To answer your earlier inquiry, no, D.C.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2006
  20. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    It doesn't matter how polite they were, they were threatening to issue a citation. If there's no basis in law for it, as the guy and his supervisor concluded, then it's harassment. Now, if their interpertation of the law was wrong and the agents were right, it would be OK, but by my interpertation of it, the Hatch act is pretty clear that signs on vehicles are not the same as signs on public property.

    That's a joke, right? The clear words of the constitution? The constitution wasn't written as a 500 page volume with specific instructions for how each right should be enforced and how far it goes. It lays down several basic ideas, but it doesn't deal with the exceptions (yelling fire in a crowded theater). Let me quote you the relevant part of the 2nd amendment:
    Seems like it COULD be construed to give the STATES the right to regulate arms instead of the federal government (otherwise what's with the "well regulated militia" part?). And what about people who want their own nuclear warheads? Those are "arms", is the amendment absolute?

    I happen to very much support gun rights, but to say the constitution is black and white does a disservice to the living document it is.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2006

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>