Cindy Sheehan arrested by Capitol Police before State of the Union

[Mr. Peabody]

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

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.

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...

[Yonivore]

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 Cons utional 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 cons utional 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.

[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 Cons utional 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 cons utional 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.

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 Cons ution 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 cons utional violation every time the Capitol police force tried to eject protesters from that building. Clearly, that's not what the Cons ution contemplates.

[Yonivore]

True enough with respect to being an employee -- also true because the Cons ution 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 cons utional violation every time the Capitol police force tried to eject protesters from that building. Clearly, that's not what the Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 cons utional violation every time the Capitol police force tried to eject protesters from that building. Clearly, that's not what the Cons ution 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.

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

You do crack me up though.

SA210 thought process:

It's only the law. it. If I don't want to abide by it and the stupid 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 for 11 pages? It's a *mistake*. There was no conspiracy.

, 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 for 11 pages? It's a *mistake*. There was no conspiracy.

, 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 . 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

scott even owned you 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 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

What the is that supposed to mean?

[SA210]

What the 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 .


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

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