Cindy Sheehan arrested by Capitol Police before State of the Union

[Mr. Peabody]

I had at least 4 books entitled The Meaning of Life from a class of the same name...would that have qualified as deep? :lol

It depends on how you acted as you were carrying them around. Were you in quiet repose pondering the absurdity of your own existence? Did you have a cigarette or cup of coffee in your hand?

Did you wear any hats (caps not allowed) and have black frame glasses?

Did you experiment with vegetarianism and make fun of theists?

Any combination of these would have helped.

[Mr. Peabody]

If they get stuck on stupid again, I damn sure will.

:lol

I am glad you post here Yoni.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Me, too.


let us all hold hands and sing Kumbaya

[Mr. Peabody]

let us all hold hands and sing Kumbaya

That's the kind of jaded response I would expect from a Black agnostic.

[SpursWoman]

let us all hold hands and sing Kumbaya



Hang on ... I've got to Google the lyrics... :oops

[Yonivore]

:lol

I am glad you post here Yoni.
I'm glad you're glad. Now, somebody hurry up with those "kum-bah-ya" lyrics before the moment passes.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You just post what you want to believe

SA210, you need to look in the mirror, dumbass.

You've got a lawyer talking about the law and you are still running around on page 10 insisting you're right.

Pull your head out of Cindy Sheehan's ass for a minute and think for yourself.

[SA210]

SA210, you need to look in the mirror, dumbass.

You've got a lawyer talking about the law and you are still running around on page 10 insisting you're right.

Pull your head out of Cindy Sheehan's ass for a minute and think for yourself.
I knew he was a lawyer the whole time. Doesn't make a difference. Whatever bs You were arguing turned out to be Not true. You need to look in the mirror and argue for yourself, instead depending on others people's arguements that are also wrong to back yourself up. Read the whole thread, do some reading of everything in here, and then speak that garbage that you want to be true.

She broke no law and and was unlawfully arrested for it, which the Capitol Police admit to, therefore preventing her from expressing her First Ammendment rights. plain and simple.

10 pages later you all argue otherwise, even though the real truth came out. So pull your head out of your own and everyone else's and make sense for once. Continuing an arguement and posting jibberish and spin and insults and all this crap and prolonging the thread will never change what actually happened.

[FromWayDowntown]

She broke no law and and was unlawfully arrested for it, which the Capitol Police admit to, therefore preventing her from expressing her First Ammendment rights. plain and simple.

One last -- and I promise this will be the last -- time:

Cindy Sheehan's First Amendment rights were not infringed. She was not prevented from expressing her viewpoint -- she was simply prevented from expressing her viewpoint at that time, in that place, and in that manner. She was perfectly within her Constitutional rights to leave the building and make the same statement. She does not, nor does anyone else, have an absolute right to express herself in any manner she chooses in the United States Capitol building. Thus, there was no violation of her constitutional rights. Her one and only potential claim is for unlawful arrest, but that, again, has absolutely nothing to do with her First Amendment rights, which were not in jeopardy.

Plain and simple.

Damn.

:bang

[SA210]

One last -- and I promise this will be the last -- time:

Cindy Sheehan's First Amendment rights were not infringed. She was not prevented from expressing her viewpoint -- she was simply prevented from expressing her viewpoint at that time, in that place, and in that manner. She was perfectly within her Constitutional rights to leave the building and make the same statement. She does not, nor does anyone else, have an absolute right to express herself in any manner she chooses in the United States Capitol building. Thus, there was no violation of her constitutional rights. Her one and only potential claim is for unlawful arrest, but that, again, has absolutely nothing to do with her First Amendment rights, which were not in jeopardy.

Plain and simple.

Damn.

:bang

And once and for all, I disagree.

Whether it be at that place and time in that manner or not, it was taken away.

She was in her right, to wear that shirt to that place, at that time, in that manner.

plain and simple.

[FromWayDowntown]

And once and for all, I disagree.

Whether it be a place or time, it was taken away. plain and simple.

Then you, apparently, think you live under an entirely different legal system than all of the rest of us.

[SA210]

Then you, apparently, think you live under an entirely different legal system than all of the rest of us.
I edited it.

And once and for all, I disagree.

Whether it be at that place and time in that manner or not, it was taken away.

She was in her right, to wear that shirt to that place, at that time, in that manner.

[FromWayDowntown]

Let me ask you this: suppose Cindy Sheehan worked for a private company run by conservative people. Suppose that she wore that t-shirt to work one day and the company fired her, not because she violated a dress code, but because it didn't like the message. Would her rights have been violated in that instance?

[SA210]

Let me ask you this: suppose Cindy Sheehan worked for a private company run by conservative people. Suppose that she wore that t-shirt to work one day and the company fired her, not because she violated a dress code, but because it didn't like the message. Would her rights have been violated in that instance?
Then, she would be working for a company under that companies rule expressing something that isn't in that "company's" interest. Different from being a US Citizen at an event, than being someones employee.

[FromWayDowntown]

Then, she would be working for a company under that companies rule expressing something that isn't in that "company's" interest. Different from being a US Citizen at an event, than being someones employee.

True enough with respect to being an employee -- also true because the Constitution generally doesn't apply in private settings. Nevertheless, you've just admitted that there are limits to the First Amendment, which doesn't jive with the position you've taken on Sheehan.

You act as if she had some absolute right to wear that shirt in that hall; she didn't. You act as if she had some absolute right to be in that hall, however attired; she didn't. In each respect, she had only conditional "rights," all of which are subject to Capitol rules and to the discretion of the Capitol police force. If that weren't true, there would be a constitutional violation every time the Capitol police force tried to eject protesters from that building. Clearly, that's not what the Constitution contemplates.

[Yonivore]

True enough with respect to being an employee -- also true because the Constitution generally doesn't apply in private settings. Nevertheless, you've just admitted that there are limits to the First Amendment, which doesn't jive with the position you've taken on Sheehan.

You act as if she had some absolute right to wear that shirt in that hall; she didn't. You act as if she had some absolute right to be in that hall, however attired; she didn't. In each respect, she had only conditional "rights," all of which are subject to Capitol rules and to the discretion of the Capitol police force. If that weren't true, there would be a constitutional violation every time the Capitol police force tried to eject protesters from that building. Clearly, that's not what the Constitution contemplates.
Now there's some lawyerin' with which I agree. Nicely put counselor.

[SA210]

True enough with respect to being an employee -- also true because the Constitution generally doesn't apply in private settings. Nevertheless, you've just admitted that there are limits to the First Amendment, which doesn't jive with the position you've taken on Sheehan.

You act as if she had some absolute right to wear that shirt in that hall; she didn't. You act as if she had some absolute right to be in that hall, however attired; she didn't. In each respect, she had only conditional "rights," all of which are subject to Capitol rules and to the discretion of the Capitol police force. If that weren't true, there would be a constitutional violation every time the Capitol police force tried to eject protesters from that building. Clearly, that's not what the Constitution contemplates.
FWD , I see the point you are making. But Capitol Police admitting they made a mistake, and them admitting that her and Mrs. Young are in fact able to wear those shirts in the building, would in fact mean, they had that right to do it. They say they were able to wear those shirts.

That doesn't apply to protesters though, meaning like, holding signs and things like that, but a worn shirt or buttons are ok. They admit this.

And I know you don't have absolute rights on the 1st Ammendment, of course I understand that, employment as that example, I'm just speaking of this particular situation. I appreciate the dialogue, believe me, I really do. But I see them admitting they are able to wear such clothing, tells me, that, they had a right to do it at that place, time and manner, just not other types of demonstratons.

I would like to thank you for the somewhat civil conversation we have had. You didn't so much get into namecalling as others did in this thread.

I can appreciate that.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

And once and for all, I disagree.

That's great. At least you admit that. It doesn't mean you're right.



Whatever bs You were arguing turned out to be Not true. You need to look in the mirror and argue for yourself, instead depending on others people's arguements that are also wrong to back yourself up.


:lmao Ask around - I am one of the most opinionated people on this board, and no one thinks for me. :lol

You do crack me up though.

SA210 thought process:


It's only the law. Fuck it. If I don't want to abide by it and the stupid bitch I worship and dream of the day I can give oral to didn't, then it's not a good law

Like you said - you disagree. That's the smartest thing you've said on this thread. It still doesn't make you right. Just accept you have a different (fascist, extreme left) opinion than others here, and move on.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

But Capitol Police admitting they made a mistake

That's right, they did. So why are you such a whiny cunt for 11 pages? It's a *mistake*. There was no conspiracy.

Fuck, if there was a conspiracy one of these times Cindy Sheehan flies on a plane to go make some whacko appearance on behalf of the left her plane would crash into a mountain and we wouldn't have to hear hear spout Democratic talking points memos any more.

[Darrin]

That's right, they did. So why are you such a whiny cunt for 11 pages? It's a *mistake*. There was no conspiracy.

Fuck, if there was a conspiracy one of these times Cindy Sheehan flies on a plane to go make some whacko appearance on behalf of the left her plane would crash into a mountain and we wouldn't have to hear hear spout Democratic talking points memos any more.

That's not funny, Paul Wellstone says.

[Vashner]

Cindy now has a tracking tag in her body somewhere I bet..

"Beep... beep... beep....beep".

[Despot]

This woman makes me mad, at first it was noble, not that I considered her point of view right, but that she was making a stand. Now, all she has become is an attention whore. Everyone that I have talked to that has served in Iraq, including my cousin who leaves in a couple of days for his THIRD tour in Iraq thinks she is a disgrace, and no matter what she says about supporting the troops, she is dishonoring their courage to be there, and making a mockery of all the people that have died.

[SA210]

That's great. At least you admit that. It doesn't mean you're right.
You posting that doesn't make you right. You have to actually read to know what's going on.


:lmao Ask around - I am one of the most opinionated people on this board, and no one thinks for me. :lol
:lol you crack me up actually. You've depended on everyone else to make a bogus arguement for you, and still you have yet to provide any proof or facts to backup what you want to be true. actually you can't bak it up, because the truth is out.:lol


Like you said - you disagree. That's the smartest thing you've said on this thread. It still doesn't make you right. Just accept you have a different (fascist, extreme left) opinion than others here, and move on.
Again, you wishing something doesn't make it so. Just accept the best you can do is attempt to label someone for lack of an arguement. That's what you've done. Didn't change anything. You just made a play on my use of the word "disagree". Didn't change the events in any way, shape, or form, even though you'd like to be convinced that it did.:lol

It's easy to pop in here every now and again and throw a couple of missed jabs that became nothing. Because you type words doesn't change anything, your attempt at labeling for lack of facts to back your made up stories up don't change anything, and NOT reading the whole thread but making assumptions on what you want to believe really shows what your all about. The facts have been laid out. Get over it. I guess it must burn you inside to have to try and pretend the facts aren't there. :lol

scott even owned you:lol You said Cindy Sheehan broke the law, and scott said you've been wrong before, and guess what actually happened this time again Mr. AHF:lol You are the joke.

It's funny how many say crap about how Cindy Sheehan started out with a noble cause and yall supported her for it, but then she lost her marbles, as if that opinion of her automatically justifies her loosing her American Civil Liberties, something that supposedly our troops are fighting and dying for. So, I see where yall stand. You must be against the troops seeing as how that's what we fight for. Very unpatriotic. See, that's the labeling game.

Because of your sick views and disgust and dissent of this woman, you've diregarded the facts that she broke no law and was unlawfully arrested, and feel her liberties should be stripped of her. You are a real American. I see your true character. But go on, continue your jibberish, it doesn't change anything even 30 pages later. You can't change what actually happened. No matter what you say, period.

[scott]

scott even owned you:lol

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

[SA210]

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
I was referring to your post before on how AHF was wrong, again.

==================================================
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Any signs of protest inside the Capitol are illegal. Hey, don't shoot the messenger, it's not my fault the face of the Democratic party is a stupid bitch.


Quote:Originally Posted by scott
And... are you sure... because you've been like... wrong about this kind of shit before.

From page 1 of this thread... the humor is endless.
================================================== =

[scott]

I know the reference... I was referring to your use of "even" and the :lol ... nevermind :)

[SA210]

I know the reference... I was referring to your use of "even" and the :lol ... nevermind :)
Oh, I see. :lol

[IcemanCometh]

Let me ask you this: suppose Cindy Sheehan worked for a private company run by conservative people. Suppose that she wore that t-shirt to work one day and the company fired her, not because she violated a dress code, but because it didn't like the message. Would her rights have been violated in that instance?

She would have a hell of a lawsuit. A company cannot fire you because of your political or religious beliefs. They can have dresscodes ie suits/ties and label it as an essential function of the job, they can even keep you from wearing obscene/revealing clothing however that becomes tricky. To do so would be to define what obscenity is and not even the Supreme Court has managed to do that. So if said worker really wanted to take it that far they would likely win , tho maybe not with this court.

[Gerryatrics]

You saying that I've said "dumb*ss stuff" doesn't make it so. Although quite a few of you in this thread would like to believe it, it doesn't mean it's true. I mean, how much have yall been proven wrong already in this thread alone? And how is it an arguement to say I posted copied articles?

That shows you have no arguement. It's just jibberish like the rest of them, to deflect and misguide and to stray people away from the truth and the point of this topic. That's all it is. To sum that little point up really quick for simple minds like yours, um,
when I made this thread, I posted my opinions, beliefs, and what I felt was going on and followed it with facts.

Now, you can't just say things without backing it up as most of you have tried doing. I'm sure you've seen many threads that people need to post evidence of what they are claiming.

You misunderstand, I have every intention of backing up my assertion that you post dumbass statements.


This has been discussed and argued on television and the web. I never said Bush ''Said". I said he insinuated. He insinuated in a way so that we couldn't say he actually mentioned "Iraq" verbally while many could make it seem as if her were only talking about Afghanistan and others. But many will draw their own conclusions to their liking.

It is discussed here in this video link, please watch it all, because many in here continue to make the mistake to not read everything, but just post their opinions of what they want to believe without caring for or analyzing the facts.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=13266052-3354-421f-9785-4548cbc9ee6a&f=00

Today our Nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal: the end of tyranny in our world. On September 11th, 2001, America found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state seven thousand miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country.
-George W. Bush State of the Union Address 01-31-2006

President Bush doing his best to confuse and mislead America.

You seem to be the one confused. Most anyone with at least some brain function realizes that President Bush was referring to Afghanistan. You say that Bush was really insinuating that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I say that Bush was really saying that the Taliban sheltering terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and allowing them to train in Afghanistan led to terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 people. Let's not deal with opinion though, as you said, lets analyze the facts.

A little geography lesson for you. From Baghdad, Iraq to Washington DC is approximately 6,193 miles. From Kabul, Afghanistan to Washington DC is approximately 6,922 miles. Which of these numbers is closer to 7,000? I'll give you a hint, it's the one 78 miles within 7,000. OK, I know that's not a big enough hint for you. I'll give you another one... It's Afghanistan.


Bush insinuated the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq in last nights speech.

Either you lied and hoped people wouldn't actually bother to point out how incredibly wrong you were, or you are mildly retarded (or perhaps heavily retarded) and actually believed the BS you came up with. Either way, it was a dumbass statement. You saying that President Bush really meant Iraq doesn't make it so. If you can't comprehend the statement as it was given, then do the math (or have a grownup help you do the math). Sorry, but you can't blame President Bush because you were too slow to figure it out. He didn't lie, you just weren't bright enough to keep up with him.

[SA210]

You misunderstand, I have every intention of backing up my assertion that you post dumbass statements.



You seem to be the one confused. Most anyone with at least some brain function realizes that President Bush was referring to Afghanistan. You say that Bush was really insinuating that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I say that Bush was really saying that the Taliban sheltering terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and allowing them to train in Afghanistan led to terrorist attacks that killed 3,000 people. Let's not deal with opinion though, as you said, lets analyze the facts.

A little geography lesson for you. From Baghdad, Iraq to Washington DC is approximately 6,193 miles. From Kabul, Afghanistan to Washington DC is approximately 6,922 miles. Which of these numbers is closer to 7,000? I'll give you a hint, it's the one 78 miles within 7,000. OK, I know that's not a big enough hint for you. I'll give you another one... It's Afghanistan.



Either you lied and hoped people wouldn't actually bother to point out how incredibly wrong you were, or you are mildly retarded (or perhaps heavily retarded) and actually believed the BS you came up with. Either way, it was a dumbass statement. You saying that President Bush really meant Iraq doesn't make it so. If you can't comprehend the statement as it was given, then do the math (or have a grownup help you do the math). Sorry, but you can't blame President Bush because you were too slow to figure it out. He didn't lie, you just weren't bright enough to keep up with him.
The only thing you actually pointed out is your spin. He said we must go after tyrannical states and so far that's what we've done and referenced 9/11. It was attempt, again, to mislead America. You posting that jibberish doesn't make it true. I gave you the link. Even Rudy Guliani didn't deny that Bush was talking about both Afghanistan and Iraq. That's who he attacked. Spin, that's all. Get over it, Your President is a liar.

[Gerryatrics]

:lmao

Done. :fro