READER COMMENTS ON
"CAPITOL COPS ADMIT SHEEHAN BROKE NO RULES OR LAWS!"
(53 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:13 pm PT...
HELP WANTED: Lawyer to sue sue sue the bastards . . .
d d dems BE ON THE Offensive NOT the d d defensive ! ! !
**. . . if Americans are addicted to "oil" . . . Then who are The Pushers ? ? ? . . . What should we DO With Them ? ? ? **
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:34 pm PT...
It's not about right or wrong anymore, it's about right and left.
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:36 pm PT...
Yes it was just an innocent mistake....
So was the mistake of arresting CONGRESSMAN BILL YOUNG'S WIFE!!!!!
Suuuuuure you did.....suuuure you did...
Lets see who arranged the fascist playground at D.C. ???
CAN YOU SAY THE NEOCONS?!???
I thought so.... COWARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All of them, take the neocons all to court!!!!!!!!!!!! I SAY CINDY, SUE CHENEY AND DAVID ADDINGTON AND THE REST OF FREAKS LIKE MICHAEL LEDEEN!!!!!!
Go for the throught, don't back down!
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 3:53 pm PT...
She was wearing the Eminem black hoodie in addition to the t-shirt. It was definitely a planned protest demonstration. If the congressman's wife had turned the fashion statement into a political demonstration device with a flag-striped hoodie, maybe she'd have been arrested too. (Probably not.) This may very well have already ruined any effectiveness she might have had in changing the minds of war supporters. Quit catapulting Ms. Sheehan into the faces of the opposition. She's NOT a prop, and her notoriety is going to her head. See the Truthout video of her discussing whether she should run against Dianne Feinstein in the next election. She's being turned into, or is turning into, another Mark Klaas... a parent trading on the murder of her child. STOP IT.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:00 pm PT...
Doug - Congressman Young's wife was NOT arrested (unlike Sheehan).
Agent99 - Sheehan was NOT planning on going to the SOTU that night, when she put on her T-shirt and hooded sweatshirt earlier in the day. Read the previous reporting.
I can also tell you, from knowing her a bit personally, Sheehan is nobody's "prop". What she does, for good or bad, is her own doing.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:02 pm PT...
Well,... Cindy Sheehan is exonerated,.. for her crime of thought. Bradblog deserves much credit
for keeping their feet in the fire - Capitol Police
and MSM - let them/allow them and they will chip away at any/all rights of peaceful dissent.
Hopefully Cindy will still seek her day in court,.....
they had no right to detain her for even a nano
second,... let alone drag her off like a common criminal.
How is it the other "T-shirt criminal" - Beverly
Young got the kid glove treatment by the Capitol Police - ushered to the door, without threat of arrest - after this woman called the police - "idiots".
Is there not a clause in the U.S. Constitution -
fair administration - "equal protection of the law".
Apparently the wife of Republican U.S. Representative - Bill Young of Florida is entitled to
more noble treatment of being shown to the door,..
while Cindy Sheehan gets cuffed and thrown into a jail cell. A kinder and gentler "Democracy" for one,... but not the other ?
That ain't right !
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:07 pm PT...
A hoodie? Is that the best they got now?
Did Cindy Sheehan join Black Bloc or something?
This is getting ridiculous.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:22 pm PT...
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:25 pm PT...
So, what's the REAL story? WHO orchestrated her arrest?
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:25 pm PT...
Hoods are illegal in England as the 4 million cameras cannot scan your face and when you get a knock on the door you better stick out your tongue when they ask to swab you because there was a crime in your neighborhood, if you refuse its arrest and charged for obstruction of justice. Whatever Britian is doing its step sister America will be doing soon after. ALL cars are also monitored 24/7 when you leave home by CCTV closed circuit and retained for 2 years digitally in case there is an unsolved crime and you drive by the neighborhood well so sorry for you. Summary justice.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:27 pm PT...
The key thing is that they were able to avoid having the TV cameras show HER at any point in the television of the speech, especially when Bush mentioned the noble sacrifices of our soldiers in Iraq and the families of those killed.
That's all it was about. Media spin and massaging the "message."
They are pretty sure that they control all the pool cameras and the mass media, but sometimes things go awry, so they wanted to MAKE SURE.
Remember, it was supposedly FOX that was in charge of the pool cameras for the Bush/Kerry debate when they showed a shot from the back (that the "rules" specifically indicated shouldn't be shown --- hmmm, wonder why?) that showed the "box" that was part of the whole "Bush is wired" (see isbushwired.com) story.
Yes, they control the BOSSES at all the cable outlets and all the networks and almost all the radio and most of the print, but there are still a few foot soldiers willing to occasionally "make a mistake" that might reveal the Emperor's nakedness.
Rove didn't want to take the chance, so have her arrested and removed and "ooops" it later. The mass media will generally ignore the story and the early LIE (she was going to unfurl a banner or make some big protest) will be all that is remembered.
Ahhhhh, and I felt sorry I didn't get to live through the 1930's in Germany --- but now I get to have my own version of it, complete with the 1984 media manipulation and untruth component.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:27 pm PT...
I told you, that when Bush went on TV saying, "I'm illegally wiretapping, so whaddya think about that?"...that meant no rules anymore.
Cindy, good luck suing them, it'll end up before Alito on the Supreme Court.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:28 pm PT...
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:29 pm PT...
Capitol police will supposedly be on CNN in a few minutes to explain why they dropped the charges. Jack Cafferty also did a good job conflating the incidents between Sheehan and the congressman's wife who was asked to leave. FYI.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 4:30 pm PT...
How many police forces do we have now I can't count them all.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:07 pm PT...
Capitol Police Public Information Office phone #
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:12 pm PT...
"She was wearing the Eminem black hoodie in addition to the t-shirt. It was definitely a planned protest demonstration."
So, now you're asserting that "wearing clothes that make a statement is wrong"? So, all those rich fucks wearing suits and gold watches and silk ties and cufflinks.. the "statement" they are making is "wrong"? Cause, unless you refuse to adit the "truth", we ALL make some kind of statement with what we wear.
Is your assertion that peaceful declarations are "wrong"? Cause, her sitting there wearing what EVER THE FUCK SHE WANTS, and not making a scene.. that's what PEACEFUL PROTESTS are about. That's not "demonstrating".. that's stating your position.
I can't side with Brad that she "had no intent".. I don't know her. But I can side with the facts.. she did NOTHING WRONG. Nothing was done in violation of LAW (or even "good sensibilities"). She had on "normal people's clothes" and was at what most elitists consider "a special even you should dress up for".. Personally, I've never liked that mentality. Dress up? what the fuck for?? A bunch of 1/2 wit blowhard criminals??
No law broke, no rules violated, and no one in the sleeping masses being reminded that there ARE people who DISAGREE with Shrubman and his illegal war (which is making him and his buddies FILTHY RICH, and on tax payer money for lots of it). Cindy was arrested and treated badly, someone else who DID THE SAME THING was politely asked to leave.
Get a grip Agent99.. what ever your problem with Cindy is seems to be your own problem. You're bashing on her for no good reason (that you've presented) and you're not making sense AND you're failing to see/address the INEQUALITY being perpetrated on everyone in this country, as perfectly exemplified in this situation..
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:27 pm PT...
Congressman Young's wife was forced to leave the place and treated rudely, I don't care if there was an arrest or not. Those people behaved atrociously!
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:40 pm PT...
Yes, Doug, they did behave atrociously. And I believe I've pointed that out. In regards to BOTH Sheehan and Young's removal from the event.
But the fact that Young was not arrested, points out the difference in the way the two were treated, and needs to be noted. Which is why I corrected your original note. Wignuts have been suggesting that there was "equal treatment" for both women. That is patently untrue. Mrs. Young got off *very* easy for her T-shirt. Sheehan did not.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 5:51 pm PT...
Indeed what we wear, or how we wear our hair, makes a statement. Personally I am unconfortable as hell in a room full of stuffed shirts with their $1,000 suites, Rolexes and jeweled rings. Give me jeans and a flannel shirt and I'm a happy camper.
I don't feel they are wrong for wearing what they please, I just prefer something else. But the statement they make causes me discomfort as they are percieved as somehow above me.
Yet I don't ask for them to be removed or otherwise change their appearance so as not to offend me.
I'll never forget my first trip from Wisconsin to California back in '69. I was so excited to be going, and where did I want to go? Disneyland of course!
After years of watching all the Disney TV shows and movies, I had always wanted to go.
Upon arriving at the gate, me and my friends were not allowed in because we had long hair. (Us guys that is)
The girls that were with us were not stopped and were allowed in.
Yes our hair made a statement - Hippie. But the girls with us shared our beliefs, politics etc. and only the hair length of the males was an issue.
Here we have an issue were Cindy was treated roughly and illegally and later Congressman Young's wife was asked to leave based on "Fairness" towards Cindy since the congressman's wife was also wearing a shirt with a message. In this instance it was the percieved message of the shirt which made the difference between being roughed up, arrested and hauled off in cuffs and being politely asked to leave.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:06 pm PT...
For The Record : WHO Invented the "Banner" LIE ?
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:39 pm PT...
Ms. Sheehan is yanked out the second her shirt is seen. She doesn't resist, but she's handcuffed, arrested, and detained in jail for 4 hours.
Ms. Young walks straight past security with her shirt totally in view, sits in the audience for 45 minutes, and is asked to leave just 5 minutes before the end of the speech. She argues with the policeman and calls him an idiot. No handcuffs, no arrest.
And this isn't a double standard how?
This was an administration-imposed policy against dissenters. The same policy they've been using for years at other events (which I've linked to).
Except THIS time someone realized they arrested a celebrity, and that the entire country was watching, so they tried to play it down by removing a t-shirt wearer from the other side, as softly and as late into the speech as possible.
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 6:52 pm PT...
Savantster: Go back two posts. Bashing me here while I'm trying to clarify my position to you there is... well, what? More. Just more.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/1/2006 @ 7:30 pm PT...
The cops have admitted they were wrong. Now Cindy must proceed with her suit, because to admit to illegal conduct doesn't excuse it. If a simple "We made a mistake" can be allowed to compensate for someone's being arrested, handcuffed, roughed up, and hauled off to jail, then there will be nothing to prevent the same thing from happening again.
Cindy should sue for the moon, and whatever she settles for she should donate to charity. And don't be surprised if Rep. Young, who was plenty pissed off about his wife being asked to leave, supports Cindy Sheehan's efforts.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 8:29 pm PT...
Then there are a differing degrees of atrocious,....
Young treated softly,... Sheehan treated rough,..
is there a valid reason for this different treatment,..
Our IMPERIAL El-Presidant'e de la grand'e Bush'e
- when "Bubble Boy" makes a road trip excursion
the immediate area is swept for and cleared of any
potential political dissent.
The "Goons" scan the parking lot for unfavorable bumper stickers, clothing (T-shirts),
political pins/buttons, verbal/vocal conversations
are all closely monitored before the event - to
assure that all "guests" have been properly "vetted" - and Bush is not subjected to any alternate opinions/truths.
Sooner rather than later, this requirement for blind political loyalty and compliant behavior must be checked/cease ! It is about time that the spotlight be brought to this issue - the right of any reasonable political dissent is rapidly being eroded.
If the revisions to The "Patriot" Act are passed as written - (courtesy of U.S. Atty. Gen. Gonzales) - a provision calls for a new federal police agency. The "United States Secret Service Uniformed Division",.. at one time this police agency had limited general powers in the Washington D.C. area - but the revisions to The "Patriot" Act call for
this police agency be enlarged to a national scope,.
with powers of warrant-less arrest.
This police agency will monitor/assess potential harm coming to not only the Federal Executive
Branch but now to any political figure.
Another provision of The "Patriot" Act provides that this police agency be unleashed at political meetings/gatherings/rallies,.. if deemed to be a
"Special Event of National Significance" the jackboots are set free to hunt down trouble. Now the question is,.... if this police agency is allowed to come to be,... are they to be trusted to LIMIT themselves to assess the risk and eliminate any potential harm to our political figures,... or will they cross the line and violate the civil rights of this
citizenry - who only seeks to express alternate opinions and reasonable with out harm political dissent.
Where is Ms. Cindy Sheehan,... a question for the lady,......
" Is the unleashing of a police agency at a political
event a good idea - are they capable of protecting the civil rights of all participants - or should that issue be more carefully thought out ? "
Oh,... your time spent in jail,.... did it go nicely ?
The war that took the BOY,...
the MOTHER continues to fight......
GOD Bless her and give her abundant energy !!!!
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 9:35 pm PT...
Of course there wasn't equal treatment, but it was still stupid regardless.
Especially because it was a "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" T shirt.
Murtha was wearing one too...inconsistency and idiocy abounds.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 9:37 pm PT...
MSNBC sure scrubbed that story fast.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 10:03 pm PT...
"Bubble Boy" was into "barbies" as a boy ,Cindy just doesn't measure up .
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 10:36 pm PT...
One of the most telling things about how this played out on this blog and at other sites is that all the freepers and trolls and even some supposed liberals were ready to make all kinds of assumptions before any of the facts were known. They created their own realities (or borrowed from other disinformation spinners) about what had transpired and then proceeded to crucify their boogeyman, Cindy Sheehan, based on their own biases, distortions and plain ignorance.
The whole thing was like some kind of Rorschach Test where people could look at something abstract and ill-defined and then reveal more about themselves (and their respect, or lack thereof, for the facts, for fairness and presumed innocence and for the right to legitimate dissent) than about anything pertaining to the actual (and yet to be revealed) facts of the event.
Now that the actual facts have been revealed and it turns out Cindy Sheehan did NOTHING illegal or even improper, we still have people like Agent99 making comments that reveal more about their own biases than any real truths.
I don't suppose we'll hear back from the trolls or freepers that commented here yesterday- at least until the next time they need to "catapult the propaganda".
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 2/1/2006 @ 11:43 pm PT...
I guess I have revealed that I don't like seeing someone who was making an honest statement that might have gathered support for withdrawal turn into a sideshow. I don't like watching things with a certain purity that calls to our better nature turn rancid with the ego trips of celebrity, especially one born of tragedy. So, Steve, if I have revealed this, I'm not ashamed.
I would like for the trolls and FReepers not to have a basis for their bile, and for their targets not to be blinded by the bile this brings up. What is served by it? What does it serve to turn a grieving mom into a photo op for every cause? It seems to me it's just a means to spread a little light on the marginalized, marginalizing the original message as it goes along. Someone who started out being someone with whom everyone could sympathize, whose demonstration in Crawford might have begun neutralizing trolls and FReepers, has instead turned into an easy target for them because she has taken the leg up into progressive politics her big success in Crawford attracted.
Setting aside for a moment just how inappropriate it was to have THAT man delivering the SOTU, and THOSE swine all over the room besmirching the temple of our democracy, LUCKY for her a Congressman's wife chose to dress as inappropriately. LUCKY for her the authorities don't want to add more to her martyrization and the press doesn't want to give her the bullhorn.
Maybe now she can pull herself together and think about it all a little more carefully.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 1:12 am PT...
The black hoodie is Eminem's symbol of protest against the war. T-shirts with slogans on them are demonstrations. Demonstrations are free speech. There are and/or were laws and rules about demonstrating in the buildings, because that form of free speech is antithetic to the business being conducted there, which the police decided not to press for obvious reasons. WHAT made her change her mind and go? Maybe the symbolism. Maybe just being seen by government officials. Maybe getting some press. I don't agree with hauling her out of there. They could have asked her to keep her hoodie zipped, or turn the t-shirt inside out, and they could have done the same with the congressman's wife. Unfortunately, we don't have a neutral account of what transpired.
I am usually 100% against the notion of "appropriate" dress --- I mean, WHO gets to judge? --- but I was appalled by Mean Jean wearing the flag on the House floor at all, let alone while dissing Murtha. I want to smack flag wearers, all the jerks using it in support of war crimes, but have to hold myself back from it. So it is fit that this kind of seriously antagonizing to others stuff be kept out of the room reserved for the prosecution of the People's trust.
There are a bunch of other mothers and fathers of dead soldiers. There are a bunch of wounded soldiers. There are a bunch of veterans out there. There are many people whose loss is as great as hers, but she got picked as the poster girl, and inside six months is bragging that her threat to run against Dianne Feinstein caused her to change her vote on the filibuster, when thousands of us worked our brains out for that. THEN she's not even going to honor it, thinking of running anyway, getting on camera in Venezuela, a stop on her globe-trotting, to mull it over for us. No, Steve, she's definitely getting ahead of herself.
She gets under the skin of more than just the opposition, and you see how well we are swayed in *our* thinking by others who get under our skin. So what makes you think it's going to work any better on them than it does on us? My white knight must have died in Vietnam, and if we have to depend on this kind of action to move our agenda forward, we're sunk.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 1:42 am PT...
Well, and, so, I went and checked. Both women were in violation of the United States Code. I don't care who else was and got away with it, or if anybody thinks it's wrong. It is absolutely wrong to haul one off and not the other, but there could be as many understandable reasons for it as despicable ones. Maybe we can get Justice Alito to comment on it.
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 1:58 am PT...
You want someone famous to beat Feinstein and/or The Governator, go with Rob Reiner and/or Warren Beatty.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 2/2/2006 @ 3:34 am PT...
For Agent 99: Please don't make the mistake of thinking this is all about Cindy Sheehan. "Poster girl..." "She gets under the skin..." "...definitely getting ahead of herself." "...(running against) Dianne Feinstein..." yada yada yada. That's all interesting but irrelevant.
What happened is about the Bill of Rights. If Josephine Schmoe had been hauled out of the Capitol for the simple act of wearing a T-shirt, the principle would have been the same. Cindy is high profile, and maybe they wanted to make an example of her (if so, a huge mistake), but her persona changes nothing.
For the record, your analysis of the United States Code is in direct conflict with the statements of the Capitol Police Chief, who said, "...the women were not in violation of any law. It is only a violation if one WEARS A SHIRT AND DOES SOMETHING ELSE TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE SHIRT, which the two women were not doing..." That's from the same man who said, "We screwed up."
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 4:42 am PT...
re: #21 --- It would be good to get to the bottom of the BANNER LIE... just to expose the person(s) or group(s) that created it for the lying pieces of shit they are.
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
JUDGE OF JUDGES
said on 2/2/2006 @ 7:05 am PT...
** CINDY SHEEHAN . . . is The STATE of The Union ! **
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 8:59 am PT...
They shouldn't be removing ANYONE! Who the fuck do they think they are? This goes to prove that they are not our servants, when push comes to shove. As if they are "above" the citizens they serve, like it's some exclusive party that you're lucky to be invited. Like they are not our government!
The "elitists", who escort you out of their party.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 9:24 am PT...
Agent99 Re: #33 - Where did you get the information that said t-shirts with slogans were in violation of the code?
Check my post on an earlier thread:
That's why the charges against Cindy Sheehan were dropped.
As someone said, "We screwed up - no laws were broken"
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 10:04 am PT...
Since you have entered several comments since I last chimed in, I'll leave my final comments on this thread and then move on.
You obviously have the right to dislike Cindy Sheehan but I still question whether you really understand her motivations. I don't look to her as a leader but I think she is an important "cog in the wheel" of the antiwar movement and is certainly putting more on the line out there than most any of us are while critiquing her here.
Other than you, I'm not sure who said anything about wanting "someone famous to beat Feinstein and/or The Governator". Personally, I just want someone with integrity and who is a true progressive.
I'll also say that you seem to have a bit more reverence for protocol and symbolism than I am personally comfortable with. It is the fact that the SOTU address and the work of our government are supposed to be the people's work that makes them important, NOT the shrines, symbols, officials or attire that accompanies them.
I also have to reiterate Robert Lockwood Mills' point regarding your comment #33 on violations of the United States Code. I'm not sure what "rules" you are referring to but the bottom line is that the Capitol Police said that neither Ms. Sheehan nor the Congressman's wife did ANYTHING wrong. Are you not aware that Cindy Sheehan wore those clothes for an earlier protest and was invited to the SOTU address as a last minute thing and that she has stated that it was not her intent to protest at the SOTU address? Do you know her intentions better than she does or does your dislike of her make you unable to believe anything she says?
All of that said, I have read some of your past comments on this blog and you seem to be generally pushing in the same direction as most of the rest of us here. So, I'll thank you for your efforts and apparently good intentions but reserve the right to comment when I think you (or anybody here) is out of line, as I expect you (and others) would with me.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
Real Freedom Fighter
said on 2/2/2006 @ 11:18 am PT...
It's Cindy's word against everyone else's and she is a known agitator. If she had put on a dress and not tried to make a statement, it would have been far more powerful than her dirty t-shirt because the cnn guy running the pool cameras would have showed her more than President Bush.
She isn't taken seriously anymore, and her latest stunt only hurts her and her financiers, not the President, not the Capitol Police. It hurts democrats because they keep propping her up, using her as a tool at her expense, then they will throw her away like a dirty diaper when they're done.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 12:23 pm PT...
I doubt you know as much about Cindy Sheehan's motivations as you think you do, either in regards to the episode at the SOTU address or in general. In regards to the SOTU address, I have read nothing to support your contention that "it was definitely a planned protest demonstration." What do you base this comment on given Ms. Sheehan's statements to the contrary?
I'd also like to hear your definition of what is "appropriate dress" for this event. If the setting is the "the temple of our democracy" as you describe it, it should absolutely be a place where free speech can be exercised in as respectful a fashion as the event calls for. Apparently, the conclusion of the Capitol Police was that Cindy Sheehan did not violate any rules or laws (apparently only your sense of appropriate fashion for the event).
Your comment that you "would like for the trolls and FReepers not to have a basis for their bile" seems incredibly naive to me. They don't need any basis for their bile! They can manufacture the basis whenever and wherever they want to and that's exactly what they do. What we have to do is to not fall for it or let them decide who the players should be on the progressive side or define what those players stand for.
Personally, I'm more than happy to keep "catapulting Ms. Sheehan into the faces of the opposition." She obviously gets under their skin and that's fine with me. If you're waiting for some white knight on a horse to come to our rescue you're going to be disappointed because we and people like Cindy Sheehan are the only one's that are going to be able to move our agenda forward.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 12:53 pm PT...
As I read your posts, Agent99, it occurred to me that you've run with an assumption in making your points.
If you jaywalk, you run the risk of receiving a citation. If there's a possibility that you might jaywalk, you don't run the risk of receiving anything. They cannot legally assume you're going to commit the infraction.
Cindy Sheehan did nothing to warrant her being arrested. To assume that she might have intended to, and act on it as if she did, is unlawful. That is why they're now stating "We screwed up"!
Maybe those on both sides of this argument can't definitively know if she intended to make any sort of demonstration, or not (beyond quietly wearing garb unfavorable to Bushites). What we do know is that she didn't. and that is the bottom line.
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 1:03 pm PT...
"LUCKY for her a Congressman's wife chose to dress as inappropriately"
That's my point.. YOU think it's innapropriate, those of us who truely care about the Constitution understand that YOU are wrong (at least in my opinion)..
You seem to have a problem sepperating out definitions.. lemme help.
Statement: something you say either verbally or with symbolism.
Ok.. so we ALL make a STATEMENT with ANY clothing we wear.. Can you get that concept? I'm not trying to be condecending (yet), but it's a very important concept to have on it's own merits.
Demonstrate: (note the lack of "ion").. Show someone "how to" or "what it is" or the like. I can demonstrate how to work a remote control, change a tire, etc. In it's strict form, it's innocuous.. another important concept..
DemonstratION: An act designed to cause DISTRUPTION. Something done to intentionally DETRACT from the main goal/point/setting. Again, we have the concept of "comotion" and "distraction" and "disruption"..
Cindy, in wearing "clothes" that "made a statement", wasn't "demonstrating" in the legal context.. she was making a statement.. one that we ALL understand with no question, right? She was pointing out the opposing view of the war, while the Congressman's wife was making a statement that is AMBIGUOUS, but JUST as much a political statement as Cindy. And, according to our Constitution, BOTH had EVERY RIGHT to do so, so long as they were not "being disruptive or causing a comotion".
That's the bit I don't think you care to acknowledge, and probably because you don't like Cindy (which is certianly your right.. but I think it's because she's out there doing something and you aren't.. because the "right wing" is villifying her to try and shut her down, and you bought into it.. because you have a problem with that "guy" you keep mentioning who cashed in on his kid's death, and you want to lump Cindy into that boat, right or wrong.. but, that's my take on it so far). But the FACT is, she did NOTHING WRONG, NOTHING ILLEGAL, NOTHING TO VIOLATE ANY LAW/CODE.. bah.. why bother...
And as for me "Bashing me here while I'm trying to clarify my position to you there is", I'm just pointing out that you are jumping to conclusions.. you are asserting she "had clear intent to [cause a rucus] demonstrate (in the demonstration context)", yet you offer NO EVIDENCE.. and were confusing in your statements. When you are using writing as your medium, you have to take great care to make sure you point isn't misconstrued (well, you don't have to, you can do what you please.. but it avoids having people 'bash' you for speaking unclearly).
Anyway, I'm done with this thread as well. Bottom line is, our Government is censoring our speach.. AGAIN.. and doing it without EQUALITY, and doing it in VIOLATION of the law (that is, I'd guess Cindy could sue for false arrest since there was no 'action' done that violated the law, and false arrest is about due process.. a Constitutionally PROTECED right we have in America.. for now). There was nothing wrong with Cindy's shirt, like it or not.. but it had a message that Bush didn't want seen on TV during his lie-fest about how the country is doing. Dictators are funny about that kind of thing. Keep enabling him by not being able to see the underlying violations of our rights and being caught up in the "person" being violated.. Seems to be an American sickness to support shitting on the rights of people we don't like so long as "our" rights are protected.. well, a Republican sickness that is infecting liberals, democrats, progressives, et. al.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 1:21 pm PT...
40 USC, Chapter 2, Section 193f(b)(7). I'd say just putting together who those women are and their t-shirts constitutes demonstration. Case law cited by KestrelBrighteyes would appear to rule otherwise. So. I guess we can expect slogan-festooned legislators, relatives, onlookers from here on out.
I certainly wish they'd update the code itself more often. It's a pain in the butt to read the code and then have to chase all over to find out what caselaw has mooted what. The cops may have had the same problem. Having represented cops for a couple of eons, I can tell you they get it all bolloxed up very often, and they would be loath to haul off a congressman's wife, no matter who else they'd already nabbed. It's kinda nice they bothered to kick her out. In the real world, this is much closer to equal treatment than in the past.
We all know neither of them missed anything IMPORTANT.
I still say, legal or illegal, the wearing of slogans, especially with the black hoodie addition, is demonstration. Sheehan was demonstrating earlier, and carried it right into the building with her. Especially if she did not want to go, her decision to go was in furtherance of now completely interlaced agendas, some of which no longer have the character of selflessness or altruism.
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 2:22 pm PT...
Well Agent99, that's the nature of the problem with the English Language.. Demonstration means TOO MANY THINGS.. and that's why LAW has to be explicit.. and where I get my definitions above from. Clearly, as cited in case law, "wearing a shirt that makes a political statement does not fall under the legal intent of 'demonstration' "....
but, stick to your guns.. support the usurption of civil rights and freedom of speach.. all the while trying to use your freedom of speach to fix the system that's trying to destroy your rights (with your help).
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 2:38 pm PT...
I'm in support of mitigation of gratuitously antagonistic comportment INSIDE government chambers, wherever we come together to hammer out the nuances of Our governance, advocating the usurpation of squat. You're in support of antagonism as a way of life, as our means to "peace", and hiding behind the Constitution to excuse it. Savantster, you're acting like a prig, plain and simple. Go look at the Ann Coulter video. THAT'S ALSO FREE SPEECH. You think antagonizing her is going to do the trick?
You may think you're just upholding poor darling Cindy, but you are also, here, advocating for COULTERISM. Go get in a pissing match with her.
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
said on 2/2/2006 @ 4:23 pm PT...
Who freaking cares whether Cindy Sheehan did something wrong. She did NOT.
The bottom line: we have an IDIOT by the name of george bush running the country after 2 stolen elections. Our country has become a joke. And the SOTU is simply a bunch of mostly white republiclown men who are destroying our country.
If there was a law against wearing t-shirts, I would say, who cares! Wear your t-shirt Cindy.
The reality is that they are MANY LAWS being broken by bush and his criminal thugs.
They've earned NO respect, therefore, we Americans should show them none.
We will get our country back. And in many ways, the fact that Cindy hasn't planned these events proves that she is simply a mother who lost a son in a war based on BUSH'S LIES.
All those trolls can knock themselves out even more putting down Cindy. She doesn't care. I don't care. We don't care. You only prove that she is rattling you and getting you mad!
We are fighting to get our democracy back here in the US. And we will!
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
Real Freedom Fighter
said on 2/3/2006 @ 6:07 am PT...
To FunMe #47,
Cindy is annoying, but she doesn't rattle our cages. On the contrary, I WANT HER OUT THERE because nobody else who lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan make such an ass of themself. There may be a few who protest and are upset with the President, but the vast and overwhelming majority say "My son (or daughter) knew what they were signing up for and were proud to do what they did". THOSE people don't get the coverage by the HasBeenMedia because the HBM has an agenda.
The HBM and democrats will trott out Cindy because she's always good for a soundbite. Hell, I even listened to what she had to say when she first came out, then it was immediately apparent she was a kook. She's a great representative of the democrat party because she is so extreme. Her son was a freedom loving soldier who volunteered during war knowing full well what he was getting into and what the price could be. Kudos to him! There needs to be more people like Casey Sheehan. His entire family agrees with me and not Cindy which is why they have ostracized her. But instead the dems hold up Cindy as some great saviour who has gone way past being a sympathetic figure, use her like a condom and then will throw her away once she has served her purpose. It's sad, it's crude, but it's a fact.
And then you have nutjobs who still can't get over being routed in 1994, 2000, 2002 and 2004. I don't care if Gore did get more nationwide votes, he lost by every recount in the Electoral College. And in 2004 kerry said "If only I had goten 130,000 more votwes in Ohio". yes, you would have only lost by 4,000,000 votes nationwide. Dems would have loved the Electoral College then, right? Where were all the dead voters in Ohio anyway?
It really is in the best interest of the country to have two strong parties, but since the democrats are so obsessed with destroying themselves, I say "let them." Keep trotting Cindy out every chance you get. Buy the start of business 2007 we will have 60+ republican senators and even teddy and kerry won't be able to do anything about it. oh, wait, during Alito they couldn't manage a filibuster anyway. Some leadership. What does that tell you?
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
said on 2/3/2006 @ 8:53 am PT...
You're right & that was well-said, especially
"The bottom line: we have an IDIOT by the name of george bush running the country after 2 stolen elections"
"The reality is that [there] are MANY LAWS being broken by bush and his criminal thugs."
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
said on 2/3/2006 @ 12:50 pm PT...
"FACSISM IS ON THE MARCH",.........
Some people are so excited/ecstatic about that,......
how can they not be concerned,..... and ashamed ?
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
Real Freedom Fighter
said on 2/6/2006 @ 1:23 pm PT...
To all of you kooks that think we are living under fascism is on the march...
Do you really believe that? if big ol' bad George Bush has the abilty to break the law and spy on Americans and look at your library records, why aren't you in a concentration camp? Obviously if he hates freedom and you are the freedom underground revolutionaries ("viva la revalution!" "Long Live Che and Fidel!") he is targeting you and he will catch you. It's only a matter of seconds and he is no doubt spying right here so why are you still at it?
Answer: BECAUSE YOU ARE OFF YOUR ROCKERS AND FULL OF SHIT!!!!
I was more at risk when sick willy used the IRS to go after his enemies than you are with George Bush- unless you are an al queada sleeper agent, in which case I hope we find your ass.
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2006 @ 4:17 pm PT...
Very interested theme, with attention I will read following registration fees.
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2006 @ 4:19 pm PT...
Very interested theme, with attention I will read following registration fees.