Cindy Sheehan arrested by Capitol Police before State of the Union

[scott]

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

[SA210]

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

Oh, I see.

[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 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?...8cbc9ee6a&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 re ed (or perhaps heavily re ed) 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 re ed (or perhaps heavily re ed) 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]

Done.